Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the Borough of Southwark (Central Division), in the room of Harry Day, Esquire, deceased.—[Sir Charles Edwards.]

TRADE ACCOUNTS.

Accounts ordered,
relating to Trade of the United Kingdom during each month of the year 1940."—[Major Lloyd George.]

Oral Answers to Questions — THE WAR (FRENCH YELLOW PAPER).

Mr. John Morgan: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the necessity of keeping the British public mind as closely in touch as possible with the French point of view concerning this war, hi is prepared to have an English translation of the recent Yellow Paper issued by the French Government published as a White Paper or similar publication?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I understand that the French Government have already arranged for the publication of an English translation, which should be on sale towards the end of this week.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE (BRITISH TRAVELLERS).

Mr. Boothby: asked the Prime Minister whether steps can now be taken to facilitate travel to France for the ordinary citizens of this country and vice versa?

The Prime Minister: Subject to the necessary limitations which war-time conditions impose on transport facilities, and to security considerations which may arise in any particular case, it is the desire of

His Majesty's Government not to place obstructions in the way of British subjects who wish to travel to France. Arrangements will be made to supply reasonable amounts of French currency to individuals who obtain exit permits. His Majesty's Government similarly will welcome French visitors to this country.

Mr. Boothby: While thanking the Prime Minister for his Answer, may I ask whether he will take steps to expedite the granting of visas, or whether steps will be taken in the future, seeing that it somtimes takes days, or even weeks, for perfectly legitimate travellers to obtain exit permits?

The Prime Minister: We shall do all we can.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to issue a White Paper dealing with the negotiations for a treaty between His Majesty's Government and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics prior to the breakdown of same; and whether he will issue such Paper at an early date?

The Prime Minister: I regret that I am not yet in a position to give a definite date for the issue of this Paper.

Mr. T. Smith: Can the Prime Minister say what is delaying the issue of the White Paper, in view of the general public interest?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Paper has required a good deal of preparation, and other Governments have to be consulted.

Mr. Dobbie: Is the Prime Minister in a position to promise us an early issue of the White Paper?

The Prime Minister: I said that I was not able to fix a definite date. We are doing all we can to facilitate publication.

Mr. Mander: Can the Prime Minister give an assurance that the delay is not being caused by the fact that the documents are being edited in any way, and that the full facts will be given?

The Prime Minister: That is so.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of her unprovoked aggression on Finland, His Majesty's Government will now break off relations with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

The Prime Minister: The decision whether or not to break off relations with the Soviet Government is one that would require most careful consideration in all its aspects, and is not to be dealt with satisfactorily by means of Question and Answer.

Sir A. Knox: Would not the course suggested be logically and morally right, and is it not likely to be politically sound, as giving encouragement to some of the wavering neutrals?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH COUNCIL.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Prime Minister whether the executive committee of the British Council is a full-time committee; for what services certain executive members draw £1,000, £725, £600, and other sums each year; who determines these salaries, and how are appointments made?

The Prime Minister: The executive committee of the Council meets regularly once a quarter. None of the committee's members draws any salary from the Council for his duties in connection with its work.

Mr. Creech Jones: Who is responsible for the policy of the British Council, and to whom does the executive council report, or to whom is it responsible?

The Prime Minister: It reports to the Foreign Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHO-SLOVAK NATIONAL COMMITTEE.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish the terms of the letters exchanged between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Dr. Edward Benes, former President of the Czecho-Slovak Republic, concerning the formation of the Czecho-Slovak National Committee in this country; and to what extent action has been, or is being, taken as a result?

The Prime Minister: I am circulating the text of these letters in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the second part of the Question, the National Committee is already in touch with the competent Departments of His Majesty's Government.

Following is the text of the letters.

Putney, S.W.15,

align="right"20th December, 1939.

MY DEAR LORD HALIFAX,

I have been charged to notify you that the Czecho-Slovak National Committee has been formed.

2. The members of this committee, who represent the various elements of the Czecho-Slovak nation, are:

M. E. Benes.
General S. Ingr.
M. S. Osusky.
M. E. Outrata.
M. H. Ripka.
M. J. Slávik.
Mgr. J. Srámek.
General R. Viest.

3. This committee will be qualified to represent the Czecho-Slovak peoples, and, in particular, in agreement with His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, to make such arrangements as may be necessary in the territories under the jurisdiction of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in connection with the reconstitution of the Czecho-Slovak army in France.

4. In informing you of the constitution of the committee, I beg to request that the competent British authorities will permit the committee to proceed with the necessary arrangements in the territories in question, and will afford it all requisite support.

Believe me, etc,

DR. E. BENES.

Foreign Office,

20th December, 1939.

MY DEAR DR. BENES,

In your letter of the 20th December, 1939, you were sc good as to notify me of the formation of the Czecho-Slovak National Committee.

I have the honour to inform you that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom take note of your communication, and recognise that the committee is qualified to represent the Czecho-Slovak peoples, and, in particular, in agreement with His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, to make such arrangements as may he necessary in the territories under the jurisdiction of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in connection with the reconstitution of the Czecho-Slovak army in France.

The competent departments of His Majesty's Government will be instructed to concert with the committee in respect of the arrangements which may be necessary for this purpose in the territories in question, and to afford it all requisite support.

Yours sincerely,

HALIFAX.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister what action was taken by the recent meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations with reference to the election of judges to the Permanent Court of International Justice?

The Prime Minister: At its meeting in December the Assembly of the League of Nations decided that in existing circumstances it was not advisable to proceed to the election of the members of the Permanent Court of International Justice.

Mr. Mander: Can the Prime Minister say by what authority the judges are able to continue their functions? What arrangements are made about that?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Under Article 13, paragraph 3, of the Statutes of the Court.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANTI-NAZI PLAY (AUTHOR'S INTERNMENT).

Mr. Silverman: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the author of the play "Professor Mamlock," on which was founded the film of that name now achieving success as a medium of anti-Nazi propaganda, is now, and has for many months been, detained in a French internment camp under conditions of great hardship and indignity; and whether, in the common interests of the two countries, he will make representations to the French Government on the subject?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept the hon. Member's description of conditions in a French internment camp. In any case, the question of the internment in France of the author of "Professor Mamlock" is entirely a matter for the French Government.

Mr. Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this gentleman is known to many Members of this House, on all sides, for his personal integrity? Docs he not realise that this affair raises, in the minds of enemies of this country, very great—

Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister has said that it has nothing to do with this Government.

Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. I realise that, but I asked, at the end of my Question, whether the Prime Minister cannot make representations to the French Government in the common interests of the two countries.

Mr. Speaker: The Answer covered all that.

Mr. Silverman: In view of the extremely unsatisfactory and disappointing nature of the Answer. I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Price: asked the Prime Minister whether he can give any information concerning the proposed setting up of a Chinese Government headed by Mr. Wang Ching-Wei under Japanese protection; and whether he will reaffirm British recognition of the Government of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek as the only legally-constituted Government of the Chinese Republic?

The Prime Minister: On 9th January the Japanese Government issued a statement to the effect that the movement for the establishment of a new central Government in China had now gathered strength. Careful study, the statement continued, had revealed that what was in the mind of Wang Ching-wei was in keeping with the declared intentions of Japan, and the Japanese Empire would accordingly direct all possible efforts to help the formation of the new Government.
As regards the second part of the Question, the only Government of China which is recognised by His Majesty's Government and with which they are in diplomatic relations is the National Government of China, in which General Chiang Kai-shek is Chairman of the Supreme Defence Council and President of the Executive Council.

Mr. Price: While thanking the Prime Minister for that very interesting and important statement, may I ask whether he is aware that two former collaborators of Mr. Wang have recently left him and are now in Hong Kong, and does that not indicate a still further reason why we should have no relations whatever with any puppet Governments of Japan?

The Prime Minister: As we are not having any relations with them, I do not think that that matter arises.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND (BRITISH SUBJECTS).

Mr. Keeling: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to the condition of British subjects in Poland; and whether the British Red Cross and Order of St. John are being asked to send them supplies?

The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government have information relating to a total of 74 British subjects and 268 Palestinians, about half of whom are in German occupied territory, and the remainder in the area occupied by Soviet forces. All are believed to be suffering considerable hardship. Efforts have been made to supply those in the German occupied area with parcels of food through the British Red Cross and Order of St. John, but the German Government have refused the necessary facilities.
As regards persons in the Soviet occupied area, the International Red Cross are examining the possibility of affording relief. His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow has sent members of his staff to Lwow to organise and assist the withdrawal of British subjects and Palestinian citizens, and has made funds available for their relief.

Mr. Keeling: As regards the British subjects in the German zone, would my right hon. Friend consider making representations to the American Ambassador?

The Prime Minister: The United States Consul at Warsaw has authority to grant relief up to a maximum of £10 a month to British subjects where needed. I do not think we can do more than that.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-ITALIAN AGREEMENT, 1938.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether the exchange of military information affecting the Mediterranean and Near East areas, as provided in the Anglo-Italian Agreement of 1938, has taken place?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Annex 2 of the Anglo-Italian Agreement of 16th April, 1938, provides for the exchange of information regarding any

major prospective administrative movements or redistribution of naval, military or air forces within the areas specified during the month of January of each year. An exchange of information on military matters has already taken place, and similar exchanges on naval and air matters will be completed before the end of the month.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether negotiations have now been opened between His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government with a view to a definite agreement on the boundaries between the Sudan, Kenya and British Somaliland on the one. side and Italian East Africa on the other, and with regard to other questions affecting British and Italian interests, respectively, as provided in the Anglo-Italian Agreement of 1938?

The Prime Minister: In the spring of 1939 certain proposals were made to the Italian Government for the regulation of the frontiers between Italian East Africa on the one hand, and the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, Kenya and British Somaliland on the other. In August last, immediately prior to the outbreak of war, the Italian Government stated that they were unable to accept these proposals, and this and related questions therefore require further consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHANGHAI (ATTACKS ON BRITISH SUBJECTS).

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the attacks made upon municipal employés in Shanghai; whether he has received any British official information on the subject from that city; and whether any further steps can be taken to assure the lives of British subjects?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. A report has been received of an attack upon Mr. Godfrey Phillips, secretary to the Shanghai Municipal Council on the 6th January, while he was travelling by car in Avenue Haig, bordering the French Concession. Several shots were fired at Mr. Phillips. but fortunately he was not hit. Fuller details of the attack are awaited. I understand that special precautions are being taken to protect Mr. Phillips and other officials of the council.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

PIGEON SERVICE.

Mr. J. Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for Air what complaints he has received about losses of homing pigeons on service, due to their being shot down other than by enemy action and, in particular, from the Bircham Newton aerodrome authorities?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): Two reports, one of which came from the Royal Air Force Station at Bircham Newton in November last, have been received of the shooting of pigeons on Royal Air Force service. The need for care to avoid shooting homing pigeons has already been emphasised in broadcasts and I am arranging for further publicity to be given to this matter.

Mr. Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to his right hon. arid gallant Friend the Minister of Agriculture that when his Department is sending out fresh notices about the shooting of wood pigeons they should have a paragraph or two about this particular matter, because it is important at the present time?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. I will gladly confer with my right hon. and gallant Friend.

OBSERVATION POSTS (PERSONNEL).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider the advisability of arranging, so far as is practicable, that men engaged at observation posts shall be drawn from those out of employment, with a view to avoiding feeling between special constables who receive no payment for their ordinary work, and special constables who are employed part-time at observation posts, and often, though in full employment, are paid at the rate of Is. 3d. per hour; and whether he will give particular attention to the situation existing in these respects at a post between Bewdley and Tenbury?

Sir K. Wood: As special constables, members of the Observer Corps were entitled to certain allowances. The corps, however, is no longer part of the Special Constabulary and those allowances have been replaced by the present consolidated payment of is. 3d. an hour. The great majority of the observers were enrolled before the war and were specially trained

for this work. No large-scale substitution is practicable at this stage, but any vacancies that occur will be filled as far as possible from persons registered at the Employment Exchanges. If the hon. Member will communicate with me on the last part of the Question I will have inquiries made.

WELFARE SCHEME.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the welfare of troops scheme established recently by the War Office; whether it is proposed to establish a similar scheme in the Royal Air Force; and whether he will bear in mind the special needs of officers and men of balloon barrage units?

Sir K. Wood: A welfare scheme similar in purpose to that established by the War Office is being organised for the Royal Air Force. It embraces the promotion of social welfare, physical fitness, recreation, including the provision of equipment for games and sports, entertainment and the collection and distribution of comforts. Entertainment has largely been placed under the Entertainment National Service Association the organisers of which have appointed a liaison officer with the Royal Air Force. The collection and distribution of comforts and gifts is in the hands of the Comforts Committee in Berkeley Square House which is run by voluntary help. Every effort has been and will continue to be made to supply the welfare needs of all Royal Air Force units including those of the balloon barrage.

Mr. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind the fact that, in order to prevent unnecessary appeals to the tribunals or the duplication of appeals for all similar bodies, there should be some kind of co-operation between the Army scheme and the Royal Air Force welfare scheme, particularly as it applies to small units, such as balloon barrage units, all over the country.

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. I will consider that, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a good many people desire their gifts to go in a particular direction.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Yes, but in order to avoid duplication and overlapping, as the hon. Member said, would it not be possible, especially in counties where there are a number of not very


large formations both of the Army and Air Force, to employ the welfare officer, who is appointed by the County Territorial Association, to look after the welfare of the Air Force as well?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. I think there is a case in that particular connection, and I will look into the matter further.

WOMEN'S AUXILIARY AIR FORCE (UNIFORM ALLOWANCE).

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that women officers in the Women's Auxiliary Air Force are only receiving a grant of £16 towards their uniform, the average cost of which is £38; and, in view of the fact that the low grant to women officers is, in many cases, causing them serious financial embarrassment, will he consider increasing their allowance for uniform?

Sir K. Wood: This matter has recently been under consideration and I am glad to say that the grant is to be increased from £16 to£30.

DEPENDANT'S ALLOWANCE (AIRCRAFTMAN GRIST).

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the dependant's allowance in respect of the widowed mother of 749172 Aircraft-man A. J. Grist, 103 Squadron, Royal Air Force, had to be reconsidered, and that on 11th December the mother was instructed to return her pay warrant book for readjustment; that from then and through the Christmas period no allowance was paid, the mother having to rely upon her widow's pension; and whether steps will be taken to prevent such undue delay in future cases?

Sir K. Wood: At the end of November last the airman referred to requested that the voluntary allotment which was in issue to his mother should cease as from the middle of December and the allotment book was withdrawn from the recipient accordingly. Early in December he lodged a claim for a dependant's allowance to be granted to his mother and this was referred to the appropriate authority for local inquiry. Early in January, the dependant's allowance was put into issue and arrears were paid. I regret that there was some delay in effecting these adjustments. but I am satisfied

that, in general, these cases are dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

OFFICERS' EMERGENCY RESERVE.

Mr. Montague: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider the serious inconvenience occasioned to members of the Air Force Emergency Reserve by the receipt of notices to hold themselves in readiness to act promptly on receipt of specific instructions when these notices are still outstanding after months of waiting; and whether he is aware that in many instances arrangements have been long unnecessarily made in respect of the transfer of businesses, etc.?

Sir K. Wood: I regret the inconvenience to which the hon. Member refers and that it has been possible to find employment for a proportion only of those who have patriotically offered their services in the Officers' Emergency Reserve. At the outbreak of war there was a considerable number of members of this Reserve who had not been interviewed or assigned to a war appointment and the work of disposing of these applications and the many others which have since been received has necessarily taken time. The review is now practically complete; most of the members of the Reserve have been informed whether or not there is any prospect of being able to take advantage of their offer of service and the remainder will be so informed in the very near future.

Mr. Montague: Does the Minister appreciate how serious it is when a man who has a business and wishes to transfer it can make no arrangements of that kind and may have to remain waiting for six or seven months whilst somebody else is running his business?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. I do appreciate that fact.

HASTINGS PIER THEATRE.

Mr. Denville: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the scheme to take over the Hastings Pier Theatre has now been abandoned?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir.

AIRCRAFT CONTRACTS.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in all contracts placed directly or indirectly by His Majesty's Govern-


ment for the supply of aircraft from Dominion or foreign countries, there is incorporated a break clause to the same effect as that which is in force in connection with similar contracts with suppliers in the United Kingdom?

Sir K. Wood: It is the normal practice of my Department to require the insertion of a suitable break clause in aircraft contracts placed overseas. In the case of contracts placed in Canada, the clause is practically identical with that in United Kingdom contracts. So far as contracts placed in United States of America are concerned, the British Purchasing Mission have standing instructions to arrange for the insertion of an effective break clause in orders not likely to be completed within six months.

IMPERIAL AIRWAYS FLYING BOAT (LOSS).

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can make any statement regarding the recent loss of an Imperial Airways flying boat in the Mediterranean?

Sir K. Wood: An investigation into the cause of this accident is now in progress and I am therefore not in a position to make a statement at the present time.

Mr. Simmonds: Will my right hon. Friend carefully investigate whether in fact the route now adopted by these flying boats is more hazardous from a meteorological point of view than the route adopted in peace-time, and, if necessary, consider the question of adopting some modified route?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. I will see to that matter myself.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

CENSORSHIP REGULATIONS.

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that there is serious discontent among naval ratings in respect of prohibitions against posting letters while ashore and of stringent penalties imposed on ratings who, while ashore, have posted letters to wives, while at the same time naval officers have been met by their wives on the pier; and what steps he proposes to take to eliminate this discrimination,

restore the naval ratings against the penalties imposed, and remove the grounds for this discontent?

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Captain Austin Hudson): I am not aware of any such discrimination as alleged by the hon. and learned Member. The naval censorship regulations which prohibit the posting of letters ashore by naval personnel apply equally to officers and men. Both officers and men may ask their wives to join them at a port after their ship has arrived there, but neither officers nor men may reveal the prospective movements of their ships. Disciplinary action has been taken when such information has been revealed to wives.

Mr. Gibson: Can the Minister say whether this disciplinary action has been exclusively exercised in cases of ratings or officers?

Captain Hudson: Equally between ratings and officers.

TORPEDO FACTORY, GREENOCK.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that first-class skilled engineers at the Royal Naval torpedo factory at Greenock are being paid off at the age of 65; that this fact is the cause of much criticism; and whether he will take steps to ensure that, during the war emergency, the services of these skilled engineers will be retained in the public interest?

Captain Hudson: Local officers have been authorised to retain unestablished men at their discretion beyond the age of 65 during the present emergency without reference to the Admiralty. As regards established workmen the Order-in-Council regulating the retirement of established civil servants provides for compulsory retirement at 65, but empowers the Treasury in special cases to extend employment for a further period not exceeding five years. Alternatively, established employés may be retired at 65 but reentered on a temporary basis, if the local officers consider them fit for service and the men themselves are willing to remain.
In all suitable cases advantage will continue to be taken of these facilities to retain the services of men over 65.

RECRUITING REGULATIONS.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty on what grounds George


C. Price, of 7, Northfield Square, Edinburgh, born and bred in Edinburgh, was refused entry into the British Navy, in which his British West Indian father fought during the Great War; whether persons born and reared within the British Isles are subject in the recruiting regulations to caste or racial discriminations; and what steps he is taking to abolish colour prejudice in the ranks of the Navy?

Captain Hudson: According to the information available at the Admiralty, George C. Price has never applied to join the Royal Navy. During the war men of colour may be considered for entry for hostilities only service in competition with other candidates on their merits, and without regard to their colour, provided they are British born and sons of British born parents.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that this young man appeared before the conscientious objectors' tribunal and that that tribunal expressed sympathy with him in the fact that before the war he had applied to join the Navy, and that vicariously he offered to join the Air Force, and that in both cases he was rejected because of his colour; and am I to understand that there is any test of alien blood that distinguishes the Admiralty from the Army?

Captain Hudson: I think I have given the position. I understand that this is rather an extraordinary case. The man's mother is Danish. Therefore he is not the son of British-born parents, but, if the hon. Member has any further particulars which he would like to bring to my notice, I shall be glad if he will do so. I understand that his brother applied in 1935 and mentioned this man, who himself has never applied. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to communicate with me further.

Mr. Woodburn: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware from the Question that this man's father served in the Navy during the last war, and, if his father was able to serve as a West Indian during the last war, it seems rather strange that his son cannot serve to-day?

Captain Hudson: I gather that he has not applied.

GERMAN SHIPS (SCUTTLING).

Sir William Davison: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to what is becoming the invariable practice of the German Mercantile Marine as well as the German Navy, to scuttle their ships in order to evade capture, as they rely on the British Navy to save and land their crews, notwithstanding the fact that their shipwreck was deliberately caused by their own act; and whether, having regard to the loss of captured tonnage thereby caused to the Allies, notice will be given to Germany that in future Great Britain cannot be responsible for saving the lives of the officers and men of German ships whose predicament has been deliberately caused by their own action?

Captain Hudson: I am aware that it is the regular practice of the crews of German merchant vessels to attempt to scuttle their ships to avoid capture. Special orders have been given to His Majesty's ships with a view to frustrating these attempts.

Sir W. Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware that in many cases the crews of these scuttled ships get to their boats and are picked up with their belongings carefully packed, showing how deliberate the whole thing is and how they expect their luggage, as well as themselves, to be safely landed in a British port?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I hope this is not a suggestion which will be carried out.

CONVOYS.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether: as a result of the sinking of the Steamship "Dunbar Castle," the arrangements for vessels joining convoys will be so tightened up as to ensure the minimum of risk, by shortening the preliminary and unprotected journeys which such vessels have to make before establishing contact with the convoys?

Captain Hudson: The Admiralty have the convoy system and its attendant arrangements continually under review and minor adjustments and improvements are constantly being effected. The point made by the hon. Member is fully appreciated.

Mr. Shinwell: Whilst I have no desire to emphasise the loss of the "Dunbar Castle" in public, does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that many vessels have to proceed long distances on preliminary voyages of seven hours' duration unconvoyed, and is he aware that considerable danger accrues in consequence of the absence of convoy? Will attention be given to the matter?

Captain Hudson: This is one of the matters now under review.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is not this the direct result of the reduction of our naval forces, which does not give the Admiralty sufficient vessels at their disposal for the protection of these ships?

SEYCHELLES.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered a resolution from the Seychelles Taxpayers' Association protesting against the increase in the price of paraffin by 70 per cent., as the citizens must rely entirely upon paraffin for lighting purposes and in many cases for cooking also, whilst there are no alternative sources of supply to those of one petroleum company; and what action he proposes in the matter?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I am informed by the Governor of the Seychelles that the price of kerosene in the Colony has increased in price by approximately 67 per cent. since November, 1939. I understand that the pre-war price of this commodity was actually below cost, the loss being recovered by increases in the price of other oils. Since the outbreak of war all qualities of oil are being sold at their true price. The Governor is satisfied that the present price of kerosene is no more than sufficient to cover reasonable costs.

EAST AFRICA (CUSTOMS FRAUDS).

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Commission which the late Governor of Kenya, Sir Robert Brooke-Popham, intended to appoint, to inquire into the long series of Customs frauds which have been perpetrated within the last few months in East Africa, has actually been set up;

and, if not, whether it is still intended that such a commission should be appointed?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The Commission has been appointed and is now taking evidence.

WEST AFRICA (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what difficulties continue to prevent, in Nigeria and other West African Colonies, legislation governing employers' liability and workmen's compensation?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The preparation of the Nigerian draft Bill has now been completed, and the Governor informs me that he hopes to introduce it at the March Session of the Legislative Council. Draft Bills have also been prepared in the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone.

Mr. Creech Jones: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will see that some progress is made with these Bills, seeing that this question of legislation has been raised in these Colonies for two or three years and nothing has been done?

Mr. MacDonald: I hope progress will be made in the case of Nigeria in the March session of the Legislative Council. With regard to the Drafts for the other Colonies they are coming over now for examination.

Mr. Lunn: When the Bills are passed will the right hon. Gentleman see that they are made effective for the workmen in the Colony?

Mr. MacDonald: Certainly.

NIGERIA (FORCED LABOUR REGULATIONS).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies under what conditions the Forced Labour (War) Regulations, 1939, issued by the Government in Nigeria, permits of the exaction of forced labour for military transport purposes in Nigeria and the Cameroons under British mandate; why it was necessary to resort to forced labour; and whether these regulations will remain operative for the whole period of the war?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am placing a copy of the Regulations in question in the Library of the House. They were designed primarily to meet conditions that might arise in the event of the war extending to the Cameroons where the sources of labour are strictly limited. No action would be taken under them unless it should prove that voluntary labour were not forthcoming. As regards the last part of the Question, I cannot say at this stage whether it will be necessary for the Regulations to remain operative during the whole period of the war.

PALESTINE (EXPORT TRADE).

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered a memorandum from the Arab chambers of commerce of Palestine asking that the restrictions laid down by Article 18 of the Mandate may be so interpreted as to enable exporters from Palestine to obtain some measures of reciprocity in negotiations with other countries; and what steps he proposes to take?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The memorandum was presented to the High Commissioner for Palestine on 4th January. He met the signatories on 9th January and will forward a copy to me as soon as possible with his comments.

MAURITIUS (MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS).

Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the reasons for postponing the general municipal elections in Mauritius due to have been held in December last?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The Municipal Council of Port Louis, which is the only municipality in Mauritius, passed a resolution in October urging that municipal elections should be postponed during the war. The Governor did not feel able to accept this resolution as it stood but he considered it undesirable on general grounds that an election should be held as early in the war as December last. Legislation has therefore been passed under which the election will be postponed until December, 1940.

Mr. Paling: May I ask whether it is a fact that the reasons obtaining here for postponing elections do not obtain there

in any shape or form? Why are they being postponed this year?

Mr. MacDonald: I think the reason is that there is naturally a good deal of dislocation in the public life of the Colony immediately following war, and the Governor thought it undesirable to add to it.

Mr. Paling: I would like to know what is the kind of dislocation referred to.

Mr. MacDonald: A good deal of the economic life of the Colony has to be under war organisation, as well as the administrative side, and I think the officials there are heavily engaged on urgent war work.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

SERVICE MEN (CHEAP TRAVEL FACILITIES).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now able to make a statement on the question of service men travelling between their billets and their centres during the times of running of workmen's omnibuses being rated as workmen, and charged accordingly?

The Minister of Transport (Captain Wallace): I have inquired into the practice throughout the country and have ascertained that, where workmen's tickets are issued on regular public service vehicle stage services they are, as a general rule, available within the specified hours to any passengers, including members of His Majesty's Forces. Where workmen's tickets are not so available to all corners I am asking the Regional Transport Commissioners to approach the operators concerned with a view to securing that the privilege of workmen's fares, subject to the usual conditions, should be extended to non-commissioned officers and men of His Majesty's Forces, except in special cases, such as workmen's services intended solely for workpeople going to particular factories, collieries or other establishments. Such services would rarely be of use to members of His Majesty's Forces, and an extension of the privilege to such services might result in displacement of the people for whom the services are intended.

Mr. Gibson: Apart from the special case of vehicles proceeding to a particular works, will the right hon. and gallant


Gentleman use his influence to make these vehicles available to anyone of the fighting Services?

Captain Wallace: That is the purport of my answer.

Mr. Stephen: Will the Minister not also extend this to commissioned officers as well as non-commissioned officers?

Captain Wallace: That is a different Question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put it on the Paper.

GOVERNMENT AND RAILWAY COMPANIES (NEGOTIATIONS).

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Minister of Transport whether agreement has yet been reached between the railway companies and the Treasury as to the terms of compensation for the use of the railways?

Sir A. Knox: asked the Minister of Transport when he anticipates that it will be possible to come to an agreement with the railway companies to enable them to pay dividends to shareholders?

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether, in view of the difficulty and delay experienced in reaching a financial agreement with the undertakings controlled by the railway executive, he will introduce legislation for the purpose of coordinating transport services under public ownership and control;
(2) whether a financial agreement has now been reached with the undertakings controlled by the railway executive; and, if not, whether he will state the reason for the delay?

Captain W. T. Shaw: asked the Minister of Transport when he will be in a position to announce what compensation is to be paid to the railway companies so that stockholders may know what dividends and interest they may expect?

Captain Wallace: I regret that it is still not possible for me to say that agreement has been arrived at, but these negotiations have now reached such a stage that I am hopeful that I shall be able to make an early statement.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether it is the intention, when agreement is reached, to publish the terms of the

agreement? Will there be any opportunity for the discussion by the House of its terms in view of the large financial implications which will be involved?

Captain Wallace: I think it will certainly be necessary to publish the terms of the agreement and I imagine there will be ample opportunity for Members to debate it.

Mr. Lawson: May I ask whether there will be any consideration of compensation for the people who have been frozen while travelling on the railways?

Captain Wallace: On the question of weather I think the hon. Gentleman must address himself to a higher authority than me.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Is it possible for my right hon. and gallant Friend to intercede with the Great Western Railway with regard to the withholding of the dividend payments they should make?

Captain Wallace: I can only repeat what I said in the House last week—that I know of no reason why the railway company should defer payment of dividend on pre-ordinary stock.

Mr. H. Morrison: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the agreement which presumably involves large sums of public money will be subject to the approval of this House?

Captain Wallace: I cannot say at the moment without notice. Anyway, we have not made it yet.

SOLDIERS ON LEAVE.

Mr. Levy: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that soldiers coming home on leave have in some cases to walk miles to their homes in consequence of the complete lack of normal transport facilities from the main line railway stations to their homes; and will he take steps to provide such facilities, either by rail or road?

Captain Wallace: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend's Question is directed to lack of branch line railway connections or of road transport facilities from stations of destination, and I cannot accept his suggestion of a complete lack of normal transport facilities. If, however, my hon. Friend can supply me with particulars of any case where substantial inconvenience


is caused to soldiers proceeding on leave, I will gladly make inquiries into the matter.

Mr. Levy: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I say that I am referring specifically to road transport, and I am sure he will agree with me that when a soldier arrives at his railway destination it is rather hard luck if he has to walk miles to his home owing to the lack of transport facilities?

Captain Wallace: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me particulars of specific cases. It is difficult to deal with a general allegation.

Mr. Lunn: Will the Minister of Transport advise road transport authorities to give priority to these men when they come home on leave, in view of the depleted bus and tram services which are operating in many localities?

Captain Wallace: I think it would be difficult to give a soldier returning home on leave priority in getting on a bus when there is no room. If the hon. Member can put forward any practical suggestions I will certainly consider them.

MOTOR VEHICLE LICENCES.

Mr. Holdsworth: asked the Minister of Transport whether motor licences taken out in March this year can be ante-dated so as to cover the Easter holidays?

Captain Wallace: Yes, Sir. Licences will be available from 21st March this year either for the second quarter or for the rest of the year. As in 1932, when a similar concession was made, there will be a small additional charge to cover the extra days. This will be 1s. for motor cycles, 5s. for cars whose annual rate of tax is less than £3 and 10s. where the tax is £30 or over. Licences taken out for the first quarter will, of course, be available until the 24th March and can be renewed as from that date in the usual way.

ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORY, EUXTON.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the lack of travelling facilities to the Royal Ordnance Factory at Euxton, Chorley, Lancashire, from the townships of Ashton-in-Makerfield, Ince, Orrell and the adjacent districts, are causing hardship to hundreds of workers; and whether he will

take the steps necessary to bring an early and a substantial improvement in such facilities?

Captain Wallace: I understand that the Wigan Corporation provide a bus service from Ashton, Ince and Orrell to Wigan at a frequency of 7½ minutes and put on duplicate vehicles when necessary. The railway company provide a service from Wigan direct to the Royal Ordnance Factory Station. I have had no complaints about the lack of travelling facilities in these districts, but if the hon. Member will let me know more precisely in what respects the existing facilities are considered to be inadequate, I shall be glad to make inquiries.

Mr. Macdonald: Does the Minister of Transport think that for men to have to travel five hours every day six days in the week for the purpose of getting to and from their work is reasonable? Should not something be done to prevent it?

Captain Wallace: Perhaps the hon. Member will discuss this matter with me. On the information supplied to me I had no idea that men had to travel five hours each day in that district. It seems that the Wigan Corporation are providing a good bus service but I am most anxious to meet the situation in any reasonable way.

Mr. Tomlinson: Is the Minister aware that owing to the large number of men who have been taken on in this factory that within a radius of 20 miles more travelling facilities are needed, and will he be prepared to discuss the matter with hon. Members who represent constituencies within a radius of 20 miles and who have the same difficulties as the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald)?

Captain Wallace: Certainly, I shall be very glad to do so.

RAILWAY HOURS OF WORK, MEXBOROUGH AND DONCASTER.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport why so many engine-drivers and firemen are obliged to work excessive hours in the Mexborough and Doncaster areas; and when this state of affairs is likely to improve?

Captain Wallace: The recent weather conditions have made railway work difficult and have slowed up operations in the


Doncaster and Mexborough districts, as well as in districts further north. This, coupled with heavy incidence of sickness, has made it necessary to call upon a number of men to work longer hours than is normally the case, but every step has been taken to ease the pressure and I hope that there will soon be an improvement in the situation.

Mr. Williams: Is the Minister of Transport aware of the heavy increase in sickness due to the fact that these men are called upon to work 14 and 15 and 16 hours a day? Is it not because the railway authorities have refrained from promoting qualified cleaners and firemen over a number of years?

Captain Wallace: I should like to have notice of that Question.

Mr. Williams: Will the Minister make careful inquiries in view of the sickness which is prevalent in these areas? Is not the problem due to a failure on the part of the authorities to promote cleaners and firemen?

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Will the Minister try to modify the long hours which are being worked on the railways by utilising road transport more effectively.

Captain Wallace: The difficulties on the railways do not, as I have stated previously in the House, supply me with additional petrol.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CHARGES, LONDON.

Sir W. Davison: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the Central London Electricity Company are raising their fixed quarterly charges under the commercial two-part tai4ff by practically 100 per cent.; and whether he can take any action to secure more reasonable treatment to subscribers?

Captain Wallace: I have asked the Electricity Commissioners to let me have a full report on the increased charges by the Central London Electricity Limited, to which my hon. Friend refers, and I am hoping to receive this report very shortly.

Sir W. Davison: While thanking the Minister for his answer, may I ask whether the Government recognise how hard it is on people who are remaining in

London on national service and other important business to have these heavy increases in electricity charges made, largely by reason of the evacuation policy of the Government?

Captain Wallace: I should prefer to await the full report from the Electricity Commissioners before making any pronouncement.

Mr. Lyons: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the increased charges will be levied before his reception of the report?

Captain Wallace: The company have given notice that the increased charges are to be levied in the fourth quarter, which I gather is the first quarter of this year.

Mr. H. Morrison: Can the right hon. and gallant Member give an assurance that if it is established, prima facie, that these charges are excessive he will exercise all the powers he has to reduce the charges, arid, secondly, if he has not, as I apprehend to be the case, sufficient powers to deal with the two-part tariff as distinct from the flat rate, he will bring in legislation in order that this profiteering may be stopped?

Captain Wallace: While I have no power in normal circumstances to deal with charges which are within the statutory maxima, I have power under the Defence Regulations, and if on receipt of this report it appears to me that there is justification for intervention on my part I shall certainly consider in what way I can deal with it.

Mr. Keeling: May I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend if, when he gets the report, he will consider whether such enormous increases would have been justified if electricity were subject to the Prices of Goods Act?

Captain Wallace: That is one of the things I shall have to consider.

PUBLIC MEETINGS (MINISTERS' SPEECHES).

Mr. H. Morrison: asked the Prime Minister whether any public money is being spent, or any assistance of officers in the public service is being utilised, in


connection with the meetings being addressed by Ministers throughout the country?

The Prime Minister: I understand that the arrangements for these meetings are being made by the Lord Mayors of the cities in which the meetings are being held. No expenditure will be met out of Government funds nor is the assistance of Government officials likely to be needed.

Mr. Morrison: Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether local authorities have any statutory powers to spend money, as presumably they are doing, on the promotion of meetings to be addressed by Ministers? Will the right hon. Gentleman also keep in mind that Ministers are, after all, the leaders of a political combination representing a majority in the House of Commons?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept the implication of the right hon. Gentleman that the meetings in question are party meetings. They are national meetings designed to give information to the public about the course of the war, and I imagine that the expenses are taken out of the hospitality funds of the Lord Mayors.

Mr. Morrison: Can the Prime Minister say what statutory powers local authorities possess, because this must be public municipal money, to promote political meetings, and whether in particular they have power to promote political meetings and spend money on them to be addressed by the leaders of a particular political combination?

The Prime Minister: That is entirely a different Question and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put it on the Paper.

Mr. Charles Williams: Is there any reason why the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) should not come and help at these meetings?

The Prime Minister: There is no reason that I can think of.

Miss Wilkinson: We do not like the Government.

Mr. Thorne: Is not the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) doing more good on his own platform?

MISS UNITY MITFORD.

Mr. H. Morrison: asked the Prime Minister what steps were taken by, or on behalf of His Majesty's Government to facilitate the return of Miss Unity Mitford to this country; and on whose authority was both military and police protection provided for her at the port of arrival?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the Question is that no such steps were taken on behalf of His Majesty's Government. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answers given to similar Questions yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.

Mr. Morrison: Are we to understand from the answer that the Government took no steps whatever to facilitate the return of this young lady to this country after she had been assisting an enemy Government?

The Prime Minister: No steps were taken by the Government in connection with this case other than those which are taken in ordinary circumstances for other British subjects.

Mr. Morrison: Will the Prime Minister inform us whether that means that the Government did make efforts to facilitate the return of a British subject who had been openly assisting the cause of an enemy Government?

The Prime Minister: The only action taken by the Foreign Office on Miss Mitford's behalf was the inclusion of her name in a list of British subjects in Germany for whom the United States Embassy were requested to do whatever might be possible, and the sending of a telegraphic inquiry about her health through the agency of the United States Embassy. Such inquiries have been made in respect of British subjects on several occasions when they have appeared to be justified by the urgency of the case.

Mr. Morrison: As it is now apparent that His Majesty's Government did take steps, may I ask the Prime Minister why he did not tell me so in the first instance? May I also ask him why the Government should take steps to facilitate the return of a British subject who would be much


better occupied in continuing the activities she was engaged on in assisting an enemy Government? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what would have been done if this had been a working-class person?

Mrs. Tate: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared to support the expulsion from this country of Communists because they are helping an enemy Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

ANTI-WASTE CAMPAIGN.

Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will cause to be published a simple statement of the articles and materials which he wishes the householder to save, in connection with the anti-waste campaign?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Colonel Llewellin): A statement of the articles and materials which householders are asked to save—especially paper, scrap metal, bones and textiles—was given at a Press conference or 30th November, and has been repeated in various Press articles and interviews. A full list, of which I am sending the hen. Member a copy, was issued on 30th November to every local authority, a number of whom have circulated leaflets to all householders in their areas. More extensive publicity has been deferred until the organisation for collection of the materials is more fully developed by the local authorities. It is hoped shortly to launch a national publicity campaign on the subject.

Sir Percy Harris: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman put pressure on those local authorities who are not doing their duty in this respect to carry out their functions and to see that a great deal of this valuable material is not wasted?

Colonel Llewellin: I am not prepared to agree that there is any local authority that is not doing its duty. Some of them are carrying out this work quicker than others, and certainly we are pressing those which are not doing it so quickly to get on with the job as quickly as they can.

Sir Richard Acland: Have they any right to grant Government money for any

containers that may have to be supplied to householders in order to separate the refuse into different classes?

Mr. Holdsworth: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that there is any number of people who have been carrying on this trade for years and that they are quite capable of collecting this material, without the local authorities doing it?

Colonel Llewellin: With regard to the first question, the local authorities can make some profit out of this themselves, and if they need extra containers they should provide them for themselves. With regard to my hon. Friend's question, we are, with regard to metal and similar materials, still using the recognised trade channels, the scrap dealers, and so on.

TIMBER CONTROL.

Mr. Leonard: asked the Minister of Supply whether he has now considered the details supplied to him by the hon. Member for St. Rollox, supporting the charge that timber merchants are circumventing the Timber Control (No. 1) Order by refusing to supply buyers in lots more than £I5 in value and by this practice gaining the right to increase the control price by 20 per cent.; and what steps he proposes to take to stop this imposition?

Colonel Llewellin: I am obliged to the hon. Member for submitting particulars of alleged evasions of the Control of Timber (No. 1) Order. Inquiries into these cases are now in progress and the possibility of taking proceedings in certain other cases is under active consideration.

Mr. Leonard: If it can be shown that any firms have been subject to this practice, and that in carrying out contracts from the Government they have required timber which they could not obtain in more than £15 lots, will steps be taken to make restitution to these firms, which are forced to pay an extra 20 per cent.?

Colonel Llewellin: That is another question.

WOOL.

Mr. Lambert: asked the Minister of Supply what percentage above pre-September price is his Department paying for commandeered wool; and what is the increased percentage price at which such wool is issued for manufacturing purposes?

Colonel Llewellin: In the case of the great bulk of the wool which has been requisitioned, the compensation paid to the owners has been about 10 per cent., and the issue price for home manufacture is at present about 20 per cent., above pre-war prices.

BUILDING CONTRACTS (SMALL FIRMS).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware of the complaints of smaller firms in Lancashire and Cheshire that building contracts let by Government Departments, which they could in some cases undertake on the spot, are given to large London contractors; that such London firms doing Government work in these two counties sometimes apply to these local firms for the use of their plant, but decline to sub-let to them any part of the contracts; and will he take steps to rearrange these contracts so as to prevent, as far as possible. increasing unemployment among building trade workers in these areas and the financial ruin of these smaller firms?

Colonel Llewellin: For the speedy and economical erection of factories, which is the type of building with which the Ministry of Supply is concerned, it is essential to employ large firms who have the necessary organisation and capacity. The policy of asking main contractors to consider the employment of local firms when they are placing sub-contracts has been adopted and is already in operation in the two counties referred to. In reply to the third part of the Question, local labour is employed on such contracts so far as is possible.

Mr. Davies: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, in spite of suggestions from the Government to that effect, small building firms seldom get sub-lets from big contractors; and if that is so, can he make a stipulation to that effect in future contracts?

Colonel Llewellin: I do not think any such stipulation has appeared in contracts so far, but I will certainly consider whether it can be put in any future contracts.

Mr. R. Gibson: How small is the number of these large firms?

Colonel Llewellin: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. Woodburn: Why were firms in the localities not given an opportunity of making an offer and stating whether they could carry out these contracts?

Colonel Llewellin: We want to employ local firms and local labour to the greatest possible extent, but when it is a question of building a factory that will cost from £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 to equip, nobody will think that the small building firm in the neighbourhood could really tackle a job of that sort, and we must, because it is essential for the provision of our Army, give such contracts to people who we think can perform them.

BELGIUM (FRANCO-BRITISH GUARANTEE).

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Prime Minister whether the announcement by General Lord Gort to the effect that if Belgium were attacked the Franco-British guarantee would come into play with lightning speed represents the considered view of His Majesty's Government; what is the nature of the guarantee referred to; and whether the military plans for implementing it, if need be, are already prepared?

The Prime Minister: Under the Locarno Treaty of Mutual Guarantee of 16th October, 1925, is Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom undertook to come to the immediate assistance of Belgium in the event of an unprovoked act of aggression by Germany. This undertaking was reaffirmed in the arrangement drawn up in London on 19th March, 1936, in the Anglo-French Declaration to Belgium of 24th April, 1937, and in a statement made to His Majesty the King of the Belgians by His Majesty's Ambassador at Brussels on 27th August last. In reply to the last part of the Question, my hon. Friend may rest assured that the question of how guarantees of all kinds can be implemented if the need should arise, has received the full attention of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend say what is the test of aggression? In this case, would it, for example, include a threatened attack, and who is to be the judge of aggression?

The Prime Minister: The Government must retain their right to decide.

COMFORTS FOR ARMED FORCES (MATERIALS, PRICE).

Mr. Denville: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will consider making it possible for parties working for the comfort of the Services to purchase wool and materials at cheaper prices than at present?

Colonel Llewellin: Wool required for spinning into knitting wools to be used for making comforts for the fighting forces is issued by the Wool Control to spinners at the same price as that for direct military requirements, and it would not be possible to reduce this price. Voluntary organisations make their own purchases of knitting wools from spinners, wholesalers or retailers, and the prices charged arc subject to the Prices of Goods Act.

Mr. Denville: Do I understand from the Minister's reply, that these parties of women can buy wholesale?

Colonel Llewellin: It is not for us to make that arrangement for them. If they can make arrangements to buy wholesale, I hope they will do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

WORKERS (SUPPLEMENTARY RATIONS).

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the reasons that have led him to change the decision to grant supplementary rations to workers engaged in heavy work; and whether he will reconsider the decision not to grant supplementary rations to these workers?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The documents and instructions with regard to rationing which were prepared before the war provided for the possibility that in the event of very stringent rationing, it might be necessary to authorise supplementary rations for heavy workers. It has not been necessary to impose severe food restrictions on the public and no supplementary ration is, therefore, necessary.

POULTRY INDUSTRY (FEEDING-STUFFS).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that poultry keepers in Lancashire have been without feeding-stuffs

for several weeks; that his Department has advised them to get in touch with the Lancashire Food Controller at Blackburn but without result; and whether he will assist in this connection, and when?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am of course aware of the shortage of feeding-stuffs for poultry keepers in Lancashire and elsewhere, but I am glad to say that there has recently been a considerable improvement in the supply situation and increased quantities of cereal feeding-stuffs are being released to the trade.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Although it is true that in the West Riding, for example, supplies have slightly increased, the price has become exceedingly high and complaints are now reaching me and I expect other hon. Members on this point? Can nothing be done?

Mr. Morrison: The price of feeding stuffs is controlled and if the hon. Member knows of any case of excessive prices being charged, I hope he will bring it to my notice. I have investigated about no such cases and in five of these I found the complaint was justified.

Sir R. Acland: Would it not be better to make a definite announcement that it is a deliberate and a necessary part of the Government's war policy to reduce the number of poultry in this country by nearly 50 per cent.?

Mr. Morrison: Without accepting the hon. Member's figure, I would call attention to the statement made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Agriculture and I would also point out that the matter is to be debated.

EVACUATED FIRMS (EMPLOYÉS).

Sir Francis Fremantle: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will instruct food control committees to regard as eligible for travellers' ration books persons who, owing to the evacuation of firms by which they are employed, work five days a week away from home and spend the week-end at their home address?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: No, Sir, the general ration book and the traveller's ration book are alike in that the holder can only make one purchase in the week of any of the foods which are at present rationed. There would, therefore, be no


advantage in issuing a traveller's book to the persons to whom by hon. Friend refers.

Sir F. Fremantle: How is the gentleman concerned to get his ration when he goes to a distant town, perhaps 100 miles away?

Mr. Morrison: That is a different set of circumstances but I think most cases could be met if people would bring the unexpired portion of the ration with them.

Sir F. Fremantle: How can they carry butter in their pockets?

BACON AND BUTTER (IMPORTS).

Mr. John Wilmot: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the normal imports into Great Britain for home consumption of bacon and butter from Denmark and Holland, respectively; and by what amount will these normal imports be reduced as a result of our present rationing?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Imports of bacon into Great Britain in the year 1938 from Holland and Denmark were 25,000 tons and 169,000 tons respectively. For butter the corresponding figures were 36,000 tons and 118,000 tons respectively. Arrangements for continued supplies of bacon and butter have been made with the appropriate organisations in Holland and Denmark, but it would not be in the public interest at the present time to give particulars of the quantities provided for under those arrangements.

SUGAR RATION (FRUIT PRESERVING).

Mr. Jackson: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will arrange for an extra ration of sugar to be made available for purchasers of homegrown cooking apples, in the same way as it has been allowed to buyers of foreign marmalade oranges?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Large quantities of sugar were made available last autumn for the preservation of home-grown fruits. I am not yet in a position to state what sugar will be available for the preservation of the home fruit crop during the coming season, but I can assure the hon. Member that the importance of the matter is fully realised.

INVALIDS (SPECIAL DIETS).

Mr. Leonard: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, pending the report of the special committee considering the effect of rationing upon the balance of foods required by diabetics and other invalids, he will issue instructions authorising the supply of rationed food to such sufferers, in quality and quantity to meet their needs, as certified by their medical advisers?

Mr. Leach: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware of the anxiety of diabetics and other invalids on account of the prolonged failure of his Department to issue the promised regulations on their behalf; and whether he can now state when they will be issued?

Mr. Burke: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what arrangements he proposes to make to enable persons suffering from diabetes to obtain the extra rations of butter, bacon and meat which their diet sheets prescribe for them?

Mr. Lipson: asked the Chancelllor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will allow a supplementary butter ration to persons suffering from certain specified diseases, and whose medically-prescribed diet does not permit them to take other foods in place of butter?

Mr. White: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is now in a position to announce a decision with regard to the granting of allowances supplementary to the normal food rations in the cases of certain illnesses?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: It will be within the recollection of the House that at the request of my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, and of myself, the Medical Research Council have appointed an expert committee to advise from time to time whether it is necessary on medical grounds to modify or supplement rations in the case of invalids and other persons on special diets. I understand that the committee have now concluded the first phase of their inquiry. Their report is not yet available. I am, however, already aware of the decision which the committee have reached on the question of supplementary allowances of butter for invalids, and in view of the widespread


interest which is felt on this subject, I should communicate to the House the information which has been placed at my disposal. It is to the effect that provided adequate supplies of vitaminised margarine are available, the committee do not consider that the present rationing regulations necessitate provision of extra rations of any food for cases of diabetes mellitus or of any other diseases. In view of this authoritative pronouncement, there are no grounds for the issue of such supplementary allowances at the present time.

Mr. Leonard: Is the Minister aware that the dietary of these sufferers is already based upon expert investigation and opinion; and if the report to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, in any way deals with alternatives for these supplies, will he bear in mind that alternatives which might be suitable for application in hospital, might be entirely unsuitable in domestic circumstances?

Mr. Morrison: I understand that all these factors were taken into consideration by the committee of the Medical Research Council which investigated the matter and I would ask the hon. Member to wait until I get the full report, when, perhaps, I can go into the question in greater detail.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that for over 15 years the medical profession in this country has repeatedly stated that butter is necessary as a diet for diabetics and that a number of diabetics have written to practically all Members in this House and to the Minister on this subject? The Minister's post-bag on this question must be bigger than on anything else, and will he sec that these people get the butter—never mind margarine?

Mr. Morrison: It is clear that this matter must be decided by me upon the best medical advice I can get. An alteration in a scheme which applies generally over the whole country must be justified on medical grounds if it is to be made. I have taken every step I can to secure the highest medical authority on the subject.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry P. Croft: If a diabetic is precluded under medical advice from using his supply of sugar and bacon, surely in those circumstances there will be an extra supply of butter?

Mr. Morrison: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will wait until I have received the full report when I can deal with these matters.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Why has the Minister delayed the appointment of this committee for so long, after having made a definite statement in this House on 1st November that diabetics would have consideration?

Mr. Morrison: I promised consideration and it was at once considered. I received medical advice from one source, a departmental source, but not being satisfied to leave the matter at that, I appealed, in conjunction with my right hon. Friends, to this the highest medical authority in the land so that I might be assured that no injustice would be done to these invalids. I think that in view of the importance of this matter, it was well worth spending time to have it thoroughly investigated.

Several hon. Members rose

Mr. Speaker: We cannot have a Debate upon the subject now.

BILLS PRESENTED.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS WAR PROVISIONS) BILL,

"to make certain amendments in the law relating to agriculture and agricultural land in connection with the present war," presented by Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith; supported by Sir John Anderson, Mr. W. S. Morrison, Mr. Colville, Sir Walter Womersley, Captain Crookshank, and Captain McEwen; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 12.]

OLD AGE AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS BILL,

"to reduce to 60 years the age at which women may become entitled to old age pensions under the enactments relating to widows', orphans' and old age contributory pensions; to provide for increasing certain contributions payable under those enactments; to make provision for supplementing, in cases of need, pensions payable under the said enactments to widows who have attained the age of 60 years, and old age pensions, and for making consequential adjustments in respect of the General Exchequer Grants payable to


local authorities which are public assistance authorities; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. Elliot; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Colville, Mr. Ernest Brown, Captain Crookshank and Miss Horsbrugh; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 13.]

INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (EMERGENCY PROTECTION FROM FORFEITURE) BILL,

"to protect from forfeiture industrial assurance policies and certain other assurance policies effected with registered friendly societies, in cases where default occurs in consequence of the war," presented by Captain Crookshank; supported by the Attorney-General; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

Orders of the Day — CZECHO - SLOVAKIA (FINANCIAL CLAIMS AND REFUGEES) (REPAYMENT AND REMISSION OF DEBT).

Resolution reported:
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to provide for the disposal of the balances of certain banking accounts representing sums lent or given by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to the Government of the Czecho-Slovak Republic, it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of a sum equal to the amount advanced out of moneys provided by Parliament to the trustees of a trust referred to in the said Act as the Czecho-Slovak Refugee Trust, and the treatment of the said sum as having been repaid by the said trustees.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CZECHO - SLOVAKIA (FINANCIAL CLAIMS AND REFUGEES) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Clause I (Payment to the Treasury of balances of loan and gift accounts) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Application of balance of loan account.)

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, at the end, to insert:
The persons entitled to benefit under this Sub-section shall be those who were citizens of Czecho-Slovakia on or before 1st September, 1938.
The object of the Amendment is to clarify certain matters to which I referred during the Second Reading Debate, and to call attention to the fact that in the Government's proposed scheme on page 4, in Clause 2, Czecho-Slovakia does not include the Sudetenland. It seems to me difficult to understand why this provision should be made. In the case of the refugees the help that is given applies to the whole of Czecho-Slovakia as the State was before Munich, whereas in this case it is apparently proposed to exclude any claims arising from citizens who formerly lived in Sudetenland, whether they be Czechs, democratic Germans, or whatever they may be. I hope that I have not misunderstood the position.

Certainly the particular section in the Bill requires some explanation, and my object in putting down the Amendment is to enable the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to make the position clear, and also to make it clear whether all Czech citizens in Czecho-Slovakia, as it was before Munich, shall be entitled to come within the benefit of this scheme.

3.53 P.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension, and it is not surprising in view of the complications of the Bill. The words in the Clause refer not to the persons who are going to receive money out of this fund, but to the locus where the obligations arise. The Bill reads:
The moneys paid into the said fund shall be applied, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of an order made by the Treasury under this Section, in or towards satisfying obligations to which the order is expressed to apply, being obligations incurred before the fifteenth day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, by the Government of the Czecho-Slovak Republic or persons who on that date were resident or carrying on business in the territories of that Republic or incorporated under the law thereof.
That means the obligations of Czecho-Slovakia as it then was, and it has nothing to do with the residence of the people when they draw benefit, if they happen to be possessors of coupons as they may be, as defined in the scheme. In other words it has been the intention here to protect inter alia the interests of British holders. This Amendment of course would nullify that, and, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), who supports this Amendment will see, it does the exact opposite to that which he asked should be done. Furthermore, under the definition of the draft scheme of residence it would cut out any refugees from the former Czecho-Slovakia who were in this country. The words "British holders" have been given a rather unusual ad hoc meaning, in order to make it possible that such refugees can get payment. Therefore, it would be not only inadvisable to pass this Amendment, but it would completely nullify the whole object of which I think the House and everybody was agreed should be done.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: In view of what my right hon. and gallant Friend has said,


perhaps I might say that I understood that the Amendment, to which I agreed to have my name put down, was to take the Austrian loan out of the ambit of the Bill. I confess I did not see the actual terms of it when I allowed my name to be attached to it, but I quite agree as my right hon. and gallant Friend has said that it would nullify the precise object I have in mind; and I welcome, therefore, the assurance he has given. The only point I would make, and it is not a large one, but may be worth while considering between now and the final stage of the Bill, is whether the Austrian loan should be included within this Bill at all. The late Government of Czecho-Slovakia is not the only Government who guaranteed this loan. There are other Governments who may also default, and it seems to me to be rather unnecessary to drag in the Austrian loan to a Bill which deals otherwise purely with Czech assets and claims. One day there will have to be a complete solution of the Austrian loan and other kindred problems, and meanwhile I do not know whether it would not be advisable to let the question of the Austrian loan stand over altogether. If my right hon. and gallant Friend is not prepared to take the Austrian loan out of the Bill altogether, I prefer the Bill as it stands at present.

Captain Crookshank: My comment on that is timeo Danaos—in this case the Independent Liberals when they bring you gifts.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, at the end, to insert:
No moneys shall be paid out of the said fund in any circumstances to persons or corporations involving payments direct or indirect to German nationals.
There are some people, I know, who take the view that it is not reasonable to take over the guarantee of the Czecho-Slovakian Government with relation to the Austrian loan, except in so far as British subjects are concerned, having regard to the fact that the guarantee is not likely to be carried out by other countries. On the whole I do not share this view. I take the view that in the circumstances we should do all we can to raise the status of the Czech State and their property by taking up their

guarantee and in this way I make no complaint. I want to make quite sure, however, that there is no possibility in this connection of any payments finding their way to German subjects. The position under (1, a) and (1, c) on page 2 and 3, are quite different from (1 b). In the case of (1, a) it has to be
shown to the satisfaction of the Treasury to have been on the 8th May, 1939, in the beneficial ownership of an individual then resident or a corporation then ordinarily carrying on business in the United Kingdom,
and in the case of (1, c) it has to be
shown to the satisfaction of the Treasury to be beneficially owned by a British holder and to have been so owned by him at all times since the 14th March, 1939, or to have been inherited by him since that date.
In (1, b), before payments are made, there is no provision of that kind whatsoever. I should have thought that there was some danger of payments being made regardless of where persons might be living and in what country. Unintentionally, of course, payments might inure to the benefit of German subjects, because one does not know what sort of transaction may have taken place since the loan was issued, and what kind of arrangements have been made as to the ownership of these shares. It may well be that transactions might have taken place with the result that Germany will benefit. I move this Amendment in order to have a clear statement from the Government on the point, and to make it quite certain that nothing in this guarantee can possibly benefit the German Government, or a German subject.

4.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Is it not a fact that already, when anybody has any financial transactions in shares and so on, he has to sign a form to the effect that none of the proceeds which he receives shall be in any circumstances whatever transmitted to any enemy country?

4.1 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: Yes, I think the answer is that that would be tantamount to trading with the enemy. If the Amendment were accepted, it would have a contrary result to one of the main arguments which the hon. Member put before the House yesterday, and would prevent any payments being made to Reich German refugees who had fled to Czecho-Slovakia and since then had come to this


country, for the reason that they are technically German nationals. That, I feel sure, is not what the hon. Member or anybody else wants to do. The whole idea is, if we can, to assist some of the refugees if they have assets here in order to enable them to live, and for that reason, if for no other, this Amendment would be quite out of place.
The important criterion is whether or riot payments will go to the enemy. If payments were directly made to enemy subjects, those sums would fall within the trading with the enemy legislation. Take, for example, an enemy subject who might have bought a Czech bond after 8th May and before the outbreak of war. If in that case he had been able to register his claim, payment would be made, not to the enemy subject, but, under the operations of the trading with the enemy legislation, to the Custodian of Enemy Property. The only other conceivable case which I think the hon. Gentleman has in mind is in conjunction with the Austrian Conversion Loan. I suppose it is theoretically conceivable that you might have an enemy subject who held some bonds of one of the neutral issues of this loan. In such a case we cannot stop him from being paid, if the Czech guarantee is paid out of the fund to the trustees. However, we have reason to know that there is no danger of any but a minimal quantity of exchange reaching the Germans from this source. The reason for this, which is not, I think, altogether appreciated, is that, after the Anschluss, the German Government took steps to acquire all the holdings in the loan of Austrians and Germans, and those bonds were cancelled in April last year, so that the possible residue is very minute, and we have no reason to suppose there is substantially any at all. I do not think the hon. Gentleman need be anxious on that point. So far as this Amendment is concerned, I think he will realise that it would be really a wrong thing, bearing in mind what we all want to do, to insert it in the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.4 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I have no wish to delay the passage of the Bill, but I

want to put a point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not know whether he has yet had time to read through the Debate that we had yesterday in the House on the Second Reading, but if he has had that opportunity, he will have noticed that I made a certain suggestion and that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury undertook on behalf of the Government to have it considered. The point was this, that the form in which the claims are to be made under the proposed White Paper narrows down what was the original intention of the Government, and the answer that the Financial Secretary gave was that, owing to the war, certain claims which would otherwise have been ascertainable had ceased to be ascertainable. I recognise the force of that answer up to a point, but I am assured that there are claims which are fully documented, of which acknowledgment has been made from the other side, but which at the present time fall without the provisions of the White Paper. Of course, if I were suggesting that all claims prima facie good were to be met by the Treasury, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have a very clear answer and would say that they could not possibly accept prima facie evidence, but in any case the Treasury would have the power to say whether the proof was or was not adequate, and all that I was asking was that certain types of claims should not be ruled out in view of the fact that they belong to certain categories.
I mentioned in particular co-operative societies in Czecho-Slovakia. I am aware that there was a strong bank and that some of those would be covered by the terms of the White Paper, but there are others which are not, and I want to bring to the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this point, that I hope that between now and the drafting of the White Paper into the actual Order, the Chancellor will consider that point once more, and if it is possible to meet what is my desire and what I am sure would be the desire of other Members of the House, I hope he can promise to give it his sympathetic consideration.

4.7 P.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I did note the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman and also the answer given by my right hon. and gallant Friend, and I think that answer given yesterday must stand for


to-day. The point that has been mentioned shall be looked into, and if it is possible to reframe the proposals in the White Paper to cover this point, if it could properly be amended in that way, it shall be done. I have noted the case as one of those which shall be looked at before the White Paper is issued.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Benson: Yesterday there was a considerable demand for more information than the White Paper gives, particularly with regard to the probable amount that must be allocated under the various headings. I should like to know whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury could give us any information on this subject. He suggested that he could not give it because all the claims were not in, and that therefore no figures could be accurate, but I cannot conceive of the Treasury drawing up a paper like this and merely dumping down a number of items without any idea at all of what those items meant in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. They must have made an estimate, and they must have some idea in their minds as to how much is likely to be allocated. The White Paper is merely a schedule of items, which conveys little or nothing to us. When we realise that this money was originally allocated for the purpose of assisting Czecho-Slovakia and the Czechs, and when we find that a very large proportion of it is likely to go to the holders of Czecho-Slovakian loans who are not Czechs, I think we are entitled to know exactly how much the Czechs are going to get out of this money and how much non-Czechs are likely to get.
Take the Austrian loan shares. I understand that Czecho-Slovakia has a 24 per cent. guarantee. What does the obligation in paragraph (1, b) amount to? There is only £3,500,000 to £4,000,000 available, and if it is all going on these forms of allocation, which are not in any way to the benefit of the distressed Czechs, I think we ought to know. We have no information at all, and we are really being asked to pass a financial Bill entirely in the dark as to what the final fund with which we are dealing is likely to be. It is no answer to say that we cannot get a correct and complete answer to our question. The Treasury

must have made some estimate, and I think the Committee is entitled to have that estimate before it passes this Clause.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: In reply to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), I would suggest that until this scheme is finally drafted as a Treasury Order, it is difficult for the Treasury to make any accurate estimate of the amount of the cash claims that there may be, because they do not yet know what cash claims will be admitted and what cash claims will not be admitted. If you give merely a round estimate of the number of cash claims which have been submitted to the Bank of England, it might be very misleading, because a considerable number of those claims will, I think, be excluded.
When the hon. Gentleman says that this money was intended for distressed Czech refugees, he is not quite accurate. The £4,000,000 grant was intended for distressed Czech refugees; but the other grant, the remaining £6,000,000, the balance of which we are considering under paragraph 2 of this scheme, was a loan to the Government of Czecho-Slovakia for reconstruction purposes. As I understand the scheme, the Chancellor of the Exchequer does propose to complete the full grant to the Czech refugees; and, therefore, it is not fair to say that we are doing the refugees out of anything. We are not. They will get the full £4,000,000 given to them by the British Government. As far as the claims are concerned, claims are to be admitted on behalf of Czech residents in this country; but the British claims are just as valid as these claims; and I cannot see why money should be given to Czechs merely because they are Czechs, and withheld from British holders of claims because they are British. There is no logic in that.
While I have some sympathy with the observations of the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), I would say that if we had been able to come to a comprehensive agreement with the Government of Czecho-Slovakia, or even with the German Government before the war broke out, to settle all outstanding claims, it might have been possible to include commercial claims. As things are, I do not think it is possible, because they cannot


be ascertained with any degree of certainty; and, moreover, we have not in dais country corresponding assets blocked against commercial claims. I therefore do not think we can or ought to satisfy any claims other than cash claims.
My final word is this. We do not yet know whether the cash payments will be made in full. I submitted arguments yesterday, and I found support on all sides of the House for the plea, that in view of the very large amount of Czech assets blocked in this country, cash claims should in any event be met in full at the present time. And I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not now, but before we finish with the Bill and the Scheme, to give us some assurance that in the event of it not being found possible to meet these cash claims in full at once, then, until they are met in full, the remaining Czech assets, amounting to, I believe, no less than £10,000,000, should be kept blocked in this country, and should not be released until the cash claims of British holders have been met.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Benson: The question of what happens to blocked Czech assets does not arise under this Bill. We are dealing with the loan to the Czech Government for the purpose of reconstruction and for helping Czech refugees. It is not a loan for paying British bondholders for any losses they may have incurred on the Czech loan. That is a risk which the holders must take. The whole of the loan was to help Czecho-Slovakia and it is a complete misuse of it to direct it now for the purpose of paying interest to bondholders who invested at a high rate of interest. We guaranteed it as a loan because we felt that Czecho-Slovakia had had a rough deal in September. It was a sop to our consciences. It was not a sop to the bondholders, and I do not think the House is entitled to give the Treasury carte blanche to deflect money granted for one purpose to a purpose which is entirely alien. There is a difference between paying cash to a refugee Czech and handing out this sum of money to British bondholders who may have an identical claim, but who are not Czechs and for whom the money was not intended.

4.17 p.m.

Miss Rathbone: I do not want to dispute the point of view of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), but I agree to some extent with the view put forward by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson). The hon. Member for East Aberdeen was rather mistaken when he said that it was only the £4,000,000 gift that was intended for the refugees. The £6,000,000 loan was, as he truly said, given to the Czecho-Slovak Government for reconstruction, but the Government made a proviso that if it had to be used in the first instance for things like roads and railways, which would have kept a good many refugees in Czecho-Slovakia, ultimately it was for the settlement of refugees in Czecho-Slovakia.

Mr. Boothby: The Czecho-Slovak Government, to which that loan was made, has unfortunately ceased to exist, and that makes a great difference when you are dealing with cash claims.

Miss Rathbone: I was going on to say that. This money cannot now be used in that way because the Czecho-Slovak Government has ceased to exist. Moreover, the money was intended to benefit the refugees by settling them in Bohemia and Moravia, but these are no longer safe places for the people it was intended to benefit, so that the money cannot be used in that way. It is a rather different thing to transfer the use of the money now to satisfy the claims of British bond It may be impossible to carry out the original intentions of the Government to benefit refugees from and into Czecho-Slovakia, but I must point out that on the whole the sort of persons we are accustomed to think of as refugees are those who are now out of Czecho-Slovakia and those who ought to have come out if they could, and who have had a very raw deal from the British Government. We originally intended to spend the £4,000,000 right out. We also gave a loan on rather doubtful security to benefit the refugees. Now we are, to a certain extent, taking advantage of the misfortunes of Czecho-Slovakia last March, which made it impossible to use the loan in the way in which it was intended, to repay the British Treasury and to use it largely for the benefit of British bondholders.
I feel rather unhappy about the transaction because we have to remember that


the Munich Pact was the origin of the whole business and we have to realise that what was done, rightly or wrongly, at Munich, put these people in a terrible situation. As a matter of fact, we have been able to do very little and have been able to rescue only a few of them. There are now in the Protectorate and the Sudetenland a few hundreds of unfortunate men and women who are the husbands or wives of refugees whom we brought to this country telling them that the other partner would follow very shortly. Because of the interminable delays, sometimes of the Home Office and sometimes of the refugee organisation, they were not brought out, and now they are told that none of them can be brought out because we cannot take any further refugees into this country as we cannot increase our burdens. Those in this country are, therefore, put in the appalling position of knowing that their husbands or wives in the Protectorate may at any moment be sent to a concentration camp.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that the question of refugees does not come under this Clause.

Miss Rathbone: I will not enlarge on it, but I want to make the point because it seems to me a reason for using in every way possible as much of the money as we can use for the benefit of the Czechs rather than for the benefit of British bondholders. I admit that my remarks went rather beyond the Clause, but it is a point which bears on it and which ought to be kept in the mind of the Chancellor and everybody concerned with this Bill.

4.22 p.m.

Sir A. Lambert Ward: There is a point which I do not think has hitherto been considered. If and when the Republic of Czecho-Slovakia is reconstituted it will want a great deal of money to put things straight. If the interest or part of the interest is paid on these bonds and the debts of Czecho-Slovakia are paid, the credit of the country will be what is known in the money markets of the world as "good" and it will be able to borrow as much money as it wants. If, on the other hand, Czecho-Slovakia or its representatives default on this loan it will mean that when the time comes when money is wanted for the country it will not be able to get it. This payment of debts and in-

terest is merely a sprat to catch a salmon.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: Some hon. Members want this money to go to the bondholders and others want it to go to the Czech refugees, of whom there may or may not be many. No one, however, has suggested that, this being British money, some of it might go to the relief of British taxpayers. It might be as well for us to hold on to the money as much as we can.

The Deputy-Chairman: That point was decided when the House passed the Second Reading, and it would not be in order to discuss it now.

Mr. Williams: I will not discuss that further. We have been thinking a great deal of the bondholders and the Czechs, but I am not clear, unless we have another statement from the Exchequer, exactly where this sum of money is going.

4.24 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: This is rather a complicated matter and I explained it yesterday in the unfortunate absence of the hon. Gentleman. It would be unfair to the Committee now to go through it again, especially in view of the fact that the House gave a unanimous Second Reading to the principles of the Bill. I have little to add on this Clause because it has to do with the loan fund and not with the refugee money at all. The point which the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) was making when you called her to order was made on her behalf by her colleague yesterday. I told him then, and I tell her now, that if they want details about that the best plan would be to ask questions of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who will do his best to answer them. They are not within my competence nor within the ambit of this Bill. As regards the £6,000,000 loan fund, the hon. Lady is right, to this extent, that the original proposals were that the loan was for the general purpose of the reconstruction of Czecho-Slovakia, including the relief and settlement of refugees in that country as then constituted. That did not mean there was any specific proportion of the money to go for that purpose. It was to be a loan to the Czecho-Slovak Government, who would have to administer it and decide for themselves


how much, if any, would go to that purpose. The argument of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) has been logically answered by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), who came to my assistance in that case more efficaciously than he did when the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) moved the last Amendment.
When the hon. Gentleman presses me again to give some estimate of what these sums might come to, I am afraid that, in spite of long cogitations this morning, it is impossible to help him. One reason, as I said in my Second Reading speech, is that we have not come to the last day for registration, which is the 31st of this month. It is conceivable—although I do not know any more than the hon. Member does—that quite big claims might come in during the last days. In any case, any figure of the amount registered would be illusory until the claims have been checked up and investigated to see what the standing of the claims was. It will not be possible for some considerable time to give any estimate of the sort of amount that is involved in the claims and what amount will stand when the claims are eventually investigated. It should be borne in mind that the White Paper which we were discussing yesterday is not an Order which is in front of us now. We are merely taking powers in the Bill to make an Order. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) raised a specific point, and, if we were to find on consideration that the sort of thing which he was talking about could be brought within the ambit of the Bill, any figure which I gave to-day might be falsified. I had better, therefore, rest on the remarks that I made yesterday, which are clear, intelligible and logical, that there is no basis on which I can give anything of any value. I would be the last person to wish to give any figure which would be of no value.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Application of balance of gift accounts.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.29 P.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I wish on this Clause, which deals with the application

of the balance of the gift accounts, to make a plea to the right hon. Gentleman, following upon the remarks I made yesterday, that he would in the near future issue a statement explaining what has been done already by the trustees of this gift and indicate the broad lines on which it is proposed to spend the remainder of the money. It is a large sum of money, amounting to some £3,500,000, and although the Bill provides in the following Clause for accounts to be submitted by the Treasury to the Auditor-General, there is no provision for any explanation of the way in which the gift is expended for the benefit of the refugees. This is public money and it is surely right that we should ask for a fuller explanation—without in any way casting any reflection upon the public-spirited and highly-competent gentlemen who are acting as trustees, or upon their advisory council. It is right that Parliament should know how this money is to be spent, and that through such a statement the wider public should also get that information. I would again beg that advantage should be taken of the opportunity of such a statement to enlarge as far as possible the scope of the work of this refugees trust for the benefit of refugees from Czecho-Slovakia. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury referred me yesterday to the White Paper issued on 21st July. That contains the directions given by the Home Office to the trustees. Those directions were given in circumstances very different from those which unhappily prevail to-day. All kinds of difficulties have arisen since then.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that I must interrupt the hon. Member. It seems to me that a circular from the Home Office giving directions about administration does not come under the scope of this Clause or of this Bill.

Mr. Harvey: I do not want to dispute your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown. I am dealing with a Clause which is concerned with the application of the balance of gifts, and it does seem to me that the application must be subject to directions of one kind or another. I will not go further into the matter, but will content myself with asking that the application of the balance may be subject to further directions which will take into account the altered situation and, if possible, make provision for other methods of helping


the refugees which are not available under the existing directions. I do not want to cast any reflection upon anyone concerned; I am only asking that the fullest opportunity should be taken to review the situation and issue a statement which will make the position clear.

4.32 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I do not want to overstep the bounds of order and I do not think that this is either the time or place to go into a detailed explanation of the scope of the Czech Refugees Trust Fund. I would only say, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, that there is no desire on the part of the trustees to conceal in any way any of their operations. The trustees have recently appointed an advisory council, upon which parties in this House are represented, and I will convey to the trustees the desirability of making some public statement of their future policy in disposing of the surplus which will be placed in their hands as a result of the operations of this Bill.

4.33 P.m.

Mr. Woods: I should like to know whether it would be in order for the trustees to make grants towards the maintenance of refugees who are in a fighting unit. It seems to me that such a purpose would be useful, but I do not know whether it would be within the scope of their work.

Mr. Peake: The scope of the work of the trustees clearly covers the cost of maintaining refugees in this country. Some of the refugees have in fact, joined the armed forces, and I should think it would be for the trustees to exercise their discretion about giving anything in addition to the service pay which those refugees receive.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSES 4 (Accounts of Funds) and 5 (Short Title), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: Before we finally part with the Bill I would ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to give the House one assurance. He has promised to take into account in drafting the Order the views that were expressed in the Debate yesterday by hon. Members on all sides of the House; and I am sure he will bear in mind that there has been, especially in certain quarters above the Gangway on the Opposition side, some criticism of the payments to be made to the bondholders, for which I think there is some justification. There has on the other hand been no criticism whatever of meeting the purely cash claims, which come into a different category; and, indeed, the view has been taken, and expressed by several hon. Members on both sides of the House, that these cash claims should be met in full. What I should like to ask my right hon. and gallant Friend is that, subject to consideration of the points put forward in the Debate yesterday, the Treasury Order will be presented to the House as soon as possible after the passage of the Bill; and that he will give an assurance that he will do everything in his power to expedite the payments that may then be made, in view of the fact that many of the claimants are hard pressed financially, and have already had to wait for a very long time. I realise that there may have to be some delay, but an assurance that it will be as short as possible would, I think, be very acceptable.

4.38 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: Yes, it is certainly not our intention to delay matters unduly. This has been a long and complicated business, and the fact still remains that the claims which have been registered will necessarily call for careful investigation, but my hon. Friend may be assured that no delay that we can possibly avoid will be allowed to occur.

4.39 P.m.

Major Procter: I should like to know whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has come to any conclusion as to the interpretation of the Clause which I mentioned yesterday, when he said that he would consult his legal advisers. The reason I ask is that once this Bill is passed we can only rely upon the Order and the White Paper. I shall be pleased to know if he has come to any conclusion.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

INDIA AND BURMA (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) [MONEY].

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Government of India Act, 1935, and the Government of Burma Act, 1935, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be payable therefrom by reason of provisions, whether retrospective of not, which—

(a) validate appointments to, or legalise increases or payments of salary in the case of persons on, the permanent establishment of the Secretary of State in Council or the staff of the Auditor of the accounts of the Secretary of State in Council, or
(b) render a Civil Servant appointed to an office under the Crown in India or Burma eligible for a pension or gratuity on relinquishing the office,
and to authorise the payment out of revenues of India or Burma of such sums as may become payable therefrom by reason of any of the provisions of the said Act of the present Session.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — INDIA AND BURMA (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL. [Lords.]

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of the provisions as to taxes on income and corporation lax.)

4.40 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Sir Hugh O'Neill): I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, to leave out from "means," to the end of line 15, and to insert:
any tax on income, so far as that tax is payable by companies and is a.
This Clause substitutes for the definition of "corporation tax" in Section 311 of the Government of India Act, 1935, a new definition of corporation tax by reference to super-tax in relation to companies. The reason for this Amendment is that since the amendment of the definition of "corporation tax" as it appears in this Bill was framed, it has been felt that that definition is, perhaps, rather too narrow. The original defect in the definition of corporation tax, which

was discovered very soon after the principal Act of 1935 was passed, was referred to at the time that the Distribution of Revenues Order was being passed. Since this Bill was introduced it has been realised that the Amendment as originally proposed introduced perhaps a rather restricting factor. The definition in the Act refers to taxes on the income of companies; that in the Bill refers in terms to Indian super-tax payable by companies. The result is that certain forms of tax which would have fallen, quite properly, within the original definition may now be excluded from its scope. This would specially affect any kind of excess profits tax which could not be described as super-tax but might well satisfy all the essential requirements of a corporation tax. As the Committee know, we in this country have recently introduced an Excess Profits Tax as a war measure, and this Amendment is required in case the Government of India should by any chance desire to do the same.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 9, at the end, insert:
and after the definition of 'taxation,' there shall be inserted the following definition:
'tax on income' includes a tax in the nature of an excess profits tax."—[Sir H. O'Neill.]

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Taxes on professions, trades, callings and employments.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.44 P.m.

Sir William Jowitt: On the Second Reading I pointed out some of the difficulties which I felt with regard to this Clause, and I am bound to say that on consideration the difficulties which I then felt are still present to my mind, and before the Committee proceeds to pass this Clause I think we ought to have some further explanation of the topics which were then raised. It is a significant and striking thing that at this time, when we are all earnestly hoping that the difficulties at present prevailing in India may be surmounted, we should radically alter a provision in the Government of India Act. The first question I should like the


right hon. Baronet to answer is, Has there or has there not been any consultation with Indian opinion on this topic? However desirable it may be to make the alterations, there should have been such consultation.
There is a second question which I would put to the right hon. Baronet. We were given to understand on the last occasion that this Amendment was rather in the nature of a formal or corrective Amendment and that the words in the Act failed to carry out the Government's intention. In so far as that intention derives from the words of the Government of India Act I can understand it. There you have, in the one Schedule dealing with Central Government, matters reserved to the Central Government in regard to any tax on income. In the Provincial Schedule, reserved for the Provincial Legislatures, is the tax on professions or employment. In so far as there may be said to be a conflict between those two, that seems to be typically a matter which might have been the subject of discussion before the Federal Court. As I said on the last occasion and as the Solicitor-General would agree —I think he did agree on the last occasion—it is obviously a matter upon which a good deal might be said on one side and on the other.
I would like to ask the Minister whether he is able to point to any precise words which were used, to make good his claim that an Amendment on these lines is merely carrying out an understanding which was always there. That is rather important. I know from my postbag that this Clause is arousing considerable feeling and apprehension in India. If we were able to say to our Indian correspondents: "This Amendment is merely carrying out what was obviously intended, because the Minister in charge of the Bill said this in so many words," or: "The Commission reported in plain terms" or something of that sort, I think we should say a good deal. If, on the other hand, there is nothing of that sort and the matter is all left vague and mushy, and we are told: "It was always understood," although the point was never considered at all, a very different situation exists. My second question to the right hon. Baronet is, Has he found —I hope he has—any authoritative state-

ment which justifies him in saying that this Amendment is really carrying out what was always the intention of the Legislature in passing the Government of India Act? If he derives that intention merely from the words of the Act itself, that seems a matter which might well be argued before the Federal Court, as to whether the intention is, or is not, adequately expressed.
The next thing I would like to ask him about is that it does seem, even assuming his point that you have to make plain that the tax on employment is not to impinge on the province or the ambit of the tax on income, that you have been rather unnecessarily drastic. For instance; in the tax on professions, trades, callings and employments, why should we have an absolutely flat rate for all professions? Take firms carrying on a profession such as that of architect. One firm may have just started, be living in very small offices and employ only one office boy, while another firm may occupy very large offices and employ many people. I can understand the objection to a tax based on income, but you can base the rate on the offices which they occupy; or they may pay some graduated tax on the number of staff they employ. That is not what the Bill proposes to do at all. It proposes a flat, or rather a maximum, rate of no more than 50 rupees, no matter how large the business or how many are employed. The rate is not to exceed 50 rupees per annum, and that is unnecessarily drastic. By all means say, if you like, that you have put the tax on employment so as not to make it a veiled Income Tax; that I can understand, but why go so much further? Why say that it is not to exceed 50 rupees per annum?
After all, you have plainly given the Provincial Legislatures power to impose a tax on professions, trades, callings and employments. The only point at issue between us is whether they are entitled to put on that tax if the tax so imposed is in the nature of an Income Tax. Let it be granted that the tax which they propose is not in the nature of an Income Tax; why should you say that the maximum tax to be imposed should be 50 rupees per annum? In the United Provinces they found themselves, when they passed their Measure, in very great financial difficulties. We had some discussion


on the last occasion about prohibition; I say frankly that what little I have seen of prohibition in this world does not in the least commend it to me. There may be circumstances in which this would be a good tax. I do not know; but it is undoubtedly the fact that, because they were raising less from their excise on drink, they were hard pushed for money. Looking about to try to find money, they came on the opportunity of this employment tax. By all means, if it is necessary, make it plain that you are not, under the guise of an employment tax, putting a tax on income, but why should you cut down without asking—if it be without asking—this undoubted power to 50 rupees per year? That is another point on which I think the Committee would like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman.
Let the right hon. Gentleman make no mistake about this matter. I expect he realises far better than I do that altering the provisions of the Government of India Act in this way naturally arouses the susceptibilities of those who are particularly interested in the Provincial Governments and who have often observed that the powers conferred upon them by this House are not to be lightly interfered with or diminished. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman why he considers it necessary to cut down this power to a mere 50 rupees a year, which is almost a negligible sum.

4.53 P.m.

Earl Winterton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman and myself had some controversy on this point on the occasion of the Second Reading, when I said that, speaking as the only Member in the House at the time who had been both a member of the Third Round Table Conference and of the Joint Committee, this Clause merely carried out the intention of the Government of India Act. Since then, I have had the opportunity of consulting a very distinguished ex-civil servant, who is outside this House and no longer has any official connection with the Government of India. He was concerned to a great extent with the circumstances which led up to the drafting of that Act. I asked him whether his recollection was the same as mine, and he said that it was.
I should not have risen to take part in this discussion in Committee if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not sug-

gested that very important principles were here at stake affecting our relationship with what may be called the political elements in India. If I may so put it, I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has smelt a rat where no such rodent exists. I would like to put a point to him, in the hope that I may convince him. This is not a question of some action taken, some post hoc action, by the Government, or by the India Office at the request of the Government of India, to do down Congress—if I may use the vulgar phrase. We had a very full discussion on this point both at the Round Table Conference and in the Joint Committee, although I cannot point to the ipsissima verba of the Secretary of State on the point; but it was made clear that it was absolutely essential, if the Government of India Act were to operate smoothly, that the rights of the Central Legislature in the matter of taxation should be most carefully guarded.
Therefore, in what may be called the interim stage before the full development of responsible government as visualised by the Act eventually takes place, it is in the interests of the future constitution of India that the India Office, the Secretary of State and the Government of India should protect the interests of the Central Legislature. There is a very neatly balanced arrangement—as I have no doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, as he was on one of the Round Table Conferences—with regard to the sources of taxation between the Central Legislature and the Provincial Legislatures. What happened, in the case of the particular Act which has been made by one of the Provincial Legislatures, was that that Act did constitute a serious inroad upon what I may call the taxable capacity of the income-earning classes in India. It is necessary, if the Central Legislature is to have the taxable resources that it requires to carry on its business, which will be naturally great in the future as it has been great in the past, that its interests should be protected. That is all that this Clause purports to do.
The Clause purports to carry out, as has been said by the Solicitor-General and by others, the original intention of the Government of India Act. It is not an action against Congress or against the Indian political elements as such; on the contrary, there are many people in India —naturally, people in public life in India


are students of the Government of India Act—who would like the sources of taxation open to the Central Government to be wider than they are and who would restrain the Provincial Governments from having so many sources of taxation. I rose only because the right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested what is entirely wrong, that this is some question between the Government of India and the people of India. This is a highly important matter connected with the question of the sources of taxation in India.
I am glad that this controversy, or whatever you like to call it, has arisen, because it is very important to make abundantly clear for all time that you can get round the intention of the Act if you put a tax of a certain height upon professions, thereby reducing the taxable capacity of the income-obtaining classes, whose capacity is assigned under the Act to the Central Legislature. This is the answer to the question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, why it is necessary to put a limitation to what can be raised by the tax upon professions.

4.59 P.m.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: I do not want to over-estimate the importance of this Clause but, in the present state of public opinion in India, and at a time when there is, to say the least, a certain political tension between the Government of Great Britain and India, it is particularly unfortunate that the Government should have decided to do something which I believe, with all due deference to the Noble Lord, will be regarded as a somewhat arbitrary decision to amend the Government of India Act in such a way as, possibly to carry out the original intention, but nevertheless, to do so in an arbitrary way without any consultation with those provincial governments or Indian politicians who can speak or organise political affairs in India. It is unfortunate at this particular moment when negotiations are going on between Mr. Gandhi, the Viceroy, and others, that the Government should have decided to go ahead with this particular Amendment.
I would like to reinforce the question which I have already put, whether there has been any consultation, and if not why there has not been any consultation with those who do speak for Indian organised political parties? This Amendment to the

India Act arises in a way which has been fully explained in the House and into it I need not go again, but it does represent a dispute between provincial governments and the Governor-General, and this sort of dispute might frequently arise between the Federal Government and the provincial constituents of it. It is unfortunate at this moment, when we are talking in terms of Dominion status in India, that the particular procedure which the Government have adopted should not in fact have been followed. I understand that the Governor-General gave no decision about this Act of the United Provinces until after it became known that the British Government intended to deal with the question by an amendment here in England; that he abstained from giving a decision until the intention of the British Government was known. So that in fact the British Government are as one party in this question deciding that the British Government shall be the interpreters of the India Act and of the intentions of those who framed it. There were considerable consultations before the India Act was passed and organised Indian opinion was fully consulted on this very difficult question of demarcation between the sources of revenue which are open to a provincial or to a federal government; the matter was very fully discussed.
It seems incredible that in the early stages of Dominion status of another Dominion this particular action, which must seem arbitrary to Indians, should have been taken in another Dominion, and it seems unfortunate that there has been no consultation or that the other procedure of referring the matter to the courts was not followed. It may be that technically the action of the United Provinces does fall within the constitution. It might be possible for somebody, perhaps even the Privy Council, to say that if that was so nevertheless the original intentions of those who framed the Act had not been carried out, and to recommend an alteration such as is being made at the present time. That would seem to me to have been a better and more conciliatory procedure than the one which is being followed now. I do not know whether the Government would consider waiving this particular Clause at the present moment. After all, there is no urgency about the matter because in spite of everything, and in spite of the years that have gone by since the India Act


was passed, the constitution envisaged in that Act is not in fact working at the present time, neither has the Federal Government been set up as has been intended, nor are the Provincial Governments working in a democratic way.

Earl Winterton: A system of taxation is in operation.

Mr. Roberts: A system of taxation is certainly in operation, but a very great part of the constitution set up under the India Act is, I greatly regret, not in fact working at the present time. The system of taxation would have gone on and I suggest it could have gone on under the other procedure of referring the matter to the courts for a decision. It seems to me that that would have been a more conciliatory way of proceeding, and, after all, on questions of taxation we in this House are very careful of our rights. You have in India at the present time a democratic system in the Provinces; you have a system which is not democratic so far as the Central Government is concerned. It is particularly unfortunate that we in England should interfere with that democratic right of taxation which the United Provinces have perhaps stretched further than was intended under the Constitution.
This Amendment that we are introducing is retrospective. It makes illegal the Act which the United Provinces passed and it makes it illegal retrospectively. It has been held up constitutionally but for consideration first by the Government, then by the Governor-General, and now here in England that Act is made retrospectively inoperative. I say again that I believe this will have an unfortunate result in India at the present time. I believe it is tactless, to say the least. I do not wish to over-estimate the importance of the question, but it seems to me at this particular moment, when some of us are very concerned about the way in which the Indian people have been dealt with by the British Government, when we are most anxious that that widespread good will which exists in India towards this country in the fight in which we are engaged should take a constructive and active part—we are all anxious for that —that we see our Government lacking in consideration and not willing to consult, whether on relatively small or on big questions.
Some of us fear that this is another example where such lack of consideration may lead to embittered feelings, where a more conciliatory attitude might make perhaps a disproportionately great difference to the question actually involved. After all, it has been laid down as the British Government's policy that Dominion status should be introduced into India as soon as possible after the war. The Viceroy has made it clear that he is ready at any time to consider proposals and to receive suggestions. Surely it would be possible in these small things as well as in the more important things to proceed in the spirit of that declaration now and not wait for the constitutional reforms which are necessary to carry it out.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Sorensen: Up to now the discussion which we have had on this particular Clause might have been concerned with the County of Rutland. I am afraid, however, that if at the present time we were discussing the limitation of assumed existing powers of the smallest county in this country, we would have had more attention paid by the Government and by this House than that now being paid to this matter which concerns directly or indirectly 350,000,000 people. Consciously or unconsciously, we are classifying India in a lower category than one of the smallest areas of this country. As far as Rutland is concerned, they have a representative in the House, representations would be made by the local authorities and the Government itself would be exceedingly careful to go to every length before a proposal of this kind were brought into the House. Because it is India and because India has not direct representation in this House and also cannot govern itself centrally we are prepared to introduce this Measure, to make up our minds that it shall go through and to make no suggestion that it should be considered in co-operation between ourselves and those 350,000,000 human beings.
As far as I can see, the Government have made up their minds, no matter what appeals may be made from this side of the House, above or below the Gangway; the Under Secretary and the rest of the Government have decided on it going through. The concerns of the people, the appeals they make and the representations we make on their behalf are just


brushed aside. In other words, we have an exhibition of autocratic power. Let us be perfectly clear that we are deciding in this House, thousands of miles away from India, exactly what shall happen to India, how India shall be governed, and how it shall dispose of its finances. I agree that so far as the hon. and Noble Lord is concerned he really believes the Government of India Act did not intend that these financial resources should be put into the hands of certain of the provincial legislatures of India. At the same time we must ask ourselves this: If the intention is not, to use his own colloquial phrase, to "do down" certain legislatures in India, how then did this particular Clause in this amending Bill arise? It arose, obviously, out of a recognition that there were powers interpreted by one of the provinces in India that might divert part of the financial resources of India away from the Central Government to the Provincial Governments. I was interested, therefore, in what the Noble Lord said. He went on to suggest that it was a technical question, that the Government of India Act needed adjustment and that we are trying now simply to clear up that simple technical defect. In other words, the Government of India Act did not intend this taxable capacity to be so advantageous to the provincial legislature.

Earl Winterton: If the hon. Gentleman intends to give a resume of my speech, I would remind him of what was one of my most important points; that this House, the Government of India and the Secretary of State should be to some extent the guardians of the future responsible Government of India, that is to say the Central Government; they should not give away the taxable right which they have given under the general Act.

Mr. Sorensen: While I appreciate that, surely if there is to be this careful guardianship of the future taxable capacity of the Government of India we should consult the people of India about it and not only ourselves. It is a one-sided arrangement. We are deciding ourselves what is good for India and yet at the same time we talk about the democracy of India. If there is any point in establishing these provincial legislatures it is that they do represent in some measure a democratic principle in India.

I repeat what a previous speaker said. Have we consulted any representative political or legislative opinion in India on this matter?
The answer, obviously, is, no. What we have done is to assume for ourselves that we are to determine what is best for India, to decide exactly what the future arrangements shall be; and, although I am quite certain the Noble Lord is sincere in his desire to see that the future financial resources of India are safeguarded, he, sitting in the British House of Commons, is helping to decide what is good for India without consulting the people of India themselves. If he were an Indian in one of the Provincial Legislatures or occupying a public position in India, he would be the first to resent someone in this country deciding what is best for him. Our complaint is that there has been no sort of co-operative move to gain the confidence of the people of India in order that this defect might be remedied. The explanation is that the Central Government of India is not democratic; therefore, the bias must be put towards the autocratic form of government and taken away from the democratic form of government. I ask the House to consider what effect that will have on 350,000,000 people of India. They will perceive that the first amending Bill that we put forward is designed to limit in some measure their own rights, and to increase in some measure the autocratic powers of the Central Government over the people of India. Is not that going to play into the hands of those who say that we speak with two voices, one directed to the people of Europe and a totally different one directed to the people of Asia, and that while use speak of democracy so glibly, when it comes to a question relating to an area in which we are so much concerned we modify our professions?
I would earnestly appeal to the Under-Secretary to see whether he can, at least, suspend the operation of this Clause. I should have thought that at this time, especially in view of a recent statement by Mr. Gandhi and in view of a conference which is shortly to take place at Delhi, the Government would have gone out of their way to try to encourage confidence, understanding, and friendship. Instead of which, they are blind to the psychological effect of a Bill like this and of this Clause in particular and they push this proposal


through, hoping to gain a certain amount of finance for the Central Government, which is under their control. I repeat that I should have thought that, if there had been any political sagacity at all on this matter, the Government would have said that although there might be a certain financial advantage to them in passing this Clause, yet that that was infinitesimal compared with the advantages that would result from the greater confidence, assistance and understanding secured from the people of India if this Clause were waived for the time being.
I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend who spoke just now has drawn attention to the fact that, although Prohibition is the occasion for this matter, it is not the real issue. He and I may disagree as to whether Prohibition in India is a benefit or not; that is not for us to decide. The people of the United Provinces have decided, in their wisdom, that Prohibition should be introduced. We might think it unwise but that is not our concern but that of the United Provinces. The introduction of Prohibition is simply the occasion for the emergence of a financial difficulty. The United Provinces desired to secure revenue, and they find themselves checked. That produced in that Province a dire effect. Now the situation is made worse. Therefore, I ask, though almost without hope, whether the Under-Secretary could not, at least, suspend this Clause for the time being, as a gesture to the people of India.
Let us understand that the people of India can be won by friendship and co-operation. If we go on in the way proposed in this Clause we shall unnecessarily foment antagonism and hostility. It is not too much to ask that the Government, if they are sincere, shall suspend this Clause, so as to encourage beneficial relationship between this country and the country of India—for they are two countries, not one. Although we may treat India as a Colony, it is morally and physically as distinct a country as our own. If we suspend this Clause, our act of generosity, if you like—I would say, of far-sightedness—will have far greater advantages than will he obtained if this Clause goes through. I hope that my party will vote against this Clause—whether they will or not I do not know—but I would rather that it did not become necessary. I hope the Under-Secretary

will rise to his feet and say that he has listened to our appeals; and that, because he is as concerned about India as we are, he is going to withdraw the Clause, or, at least, suspend it.

5.22 p.m.

Sir H. O'Neill: I am sorry in many ways that the tone of this Debate should have become rather political. After all, the matter which we are discussing in Clause 2 of this Bill is essentially a comparatively confined point, though it deals with what is in a sense a larger problem. The Income Tax of India, of course, is a matter of considerable importance, but we are really dealing with the comparatively minor point of the construction of the words in the Act of 1935. May I first remind the Committee of the two different definitions with which we are concerned? First, in List 1, which is the Federal List, with regard to which the Federation can deal, you have, under item 54: "Taxes on income other than agricultural income." I should have thought that that clearly meant.what it said, namely, that the main subject of taxes on income was to be for the Federal Government, and not for the Provincial Governments. Then, if you look at List 2, which deals with Provincial matters, you find in line 46: "Taxes on professions, trades, callings and employments." I think it was made clear in the Debate last week that that item in the Provincial list was not intended to be, in any shape or form, an Income Tax. Those taxes have been described by the various committees and commissions which have considered India's constitution as being taxes on professions, trades and circumstances. They have sometimes been called "status taxes." They were mostly taxes imposed by municipal bodies and corporations in India, and they were clearly imposed on a person in respect of his profession, status or employment. The Bill that was passed by the Legislature of the United Provinces not long ago—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyme (Sir W. Jowitt), who I know has studied the Bill, can confirm this—is simply a graduated Income Tax, graduated according to the amount of the incomes concerned. I do not think that under any interpretation of "taxes on professions, trades, callings and employments" you could possibly have included anything in the nature of the kind of tax


imposed by the Legislature of the United Provinces.

Sir W. Jowitt: That is a very important observation. Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has been advised —it is obvious that this matter has been very carefully considered by his Department—that such a tax as the United Provinces tax is plainly ultra vires; and, if so, why on earth was it not referred to the Federal Court?

Sir H. O'Neill: I shall come to that point in a moment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether there was any record in the proceedings of Parliament at the time when the Act of 1935 was being discussed, to show what was the intention of Parliament with regard to these taxes on income. I must say quite frankly that the Debates have been looked up and that there was not any definite statement in Parliament with regard to them. But I think the reason why there was not—if you look at all the other relevant documents which concern the matter—was largely that the whole point was so clearly understood and so clearly settled that it really was taken for granted; and that, therefore, it was not specifically referred to in Parliament. The scheme with regard to Income Tax under the Act owes its origin to the report of the Federal Finance Sub-Committee of the Second Round Table Conference. The conclusion of that committee was unanimously that taxes on income must be centrally administered. This was confirmed by the committee which sat under the chairmanship of Lord Eustace Percy. They said:
One fact which has come out clearly in our investigations is the widespread recognition of the need for uniformity of taxation throughout India…
Then you come to the Federal Finance Sub-Committee of the Third Round Table Conference. They accepted the views of the Percy Committee as to the classification of taxes on income, and they were at pains to emphasise that all legislation for the imposition of taxes on income should be uniform, and should be effected by the Federal Legislature. Thus, apart from any specific mention in Parliament, if we look at the origin of such taxation it seems impossible to doubt that taxation on income, other than agricultural income, which was reserved to the Provinces, was

intended to be an exclusively Federal matter. Every reference to the matter in the White Paper and in the Joint Select Committee's report is consistent with this view. Therefore, I would reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point with regard to intention by saying that although there may not have been any specific references to the subject in Parliament, there is undoubtedly ample authority for concluding that the intention was that taxes on income should be a matter for the Federal Government.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman and also the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) and indeed, I think also the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) all asked whether there had been any consultation with India on this matter. There has not with regard to this particular Clause, and I think the reason is obvious. If there had been consultation the lines along which it probably would have proceeded would have been as to whether or not this matter was to be referred to the court, and I am going to deal with that in a moment. Quite apart from that, it would not have been of very much use entering upon any kind of consultation with those who had been responsible for passing a Bill with regard to which there was such a fundamental difference of opinion.

Mr. Sorensen: Does that not mean that we are not treating the Indian Provinces as equal in any sense of the word at all?

Sir H. O'Neill: That is a matter of opinion, but I was stating that there are very obvious reasons why consultations did not take place and could not properly have taken place. As a matter of fact there were consultations with the Provincial Governments with regard to other Clauses in this Bill and most of them have been agreed.
Now I come to the point as to why this matter was not referred to the Courts in India for a decision. Under Section 213 of the Government of India Act there is a provision by which a matter of this sort can be referred to the Federal Court. The question as to whether or not Section 213 could be made use of was obviously considered, and this course was not adopted for one or two reasons which I think are cogent reasons. If it had been done it would have taken some considerable time. Meanwhile the taxes


would have been imposed, many people would have had to pay them, considerable hardship might have been caused, and supposing the Act had eventually not been ultra vires there would have been considerable difficulties about the matter. But the main reason—and I will put it quite plainly and it is probably obvious to every hon. Member in this House—why the matter was not referred to the Court was because, supposing the decision of the Federal Court had been adverse and they had decided that the Indian Provincial Legislature was within its rights and that this was a legal tax, clearly it would have been essential to come to this House to get the matter reversed. We look upon this question of Income Tax as being one solely for the Central Government, and as being one of such vital importance to the whole structure of Indian finance that it could not possibly have been allowed to stand otherwise. That, I think, is the real reason why, if I may put it so, it was not worth while going to the Court to get an opinion when it if had been in a certain direction it would have been just as necessary as it is now to come to this House and to amend this Clause.
In conclusion, I will just put before the Committee one rather wider consideration with regard to this matter, and it has been referred to by my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), who has a great knowledge of India and of Indian conditions. In trying to maintain the financial structure of India and to make sure that the Central Federal Government shall have stability of finance and will he financially sound, surely, we are building for the India of the future. The fact that constitutional conferences are to take place very shortly in India has been referred to more than once in the course of this Debate, and we all hope that out of these conferences, either now or at some later time, there may eventually come a solution of the constitutional difficulties in India and that India may take its place as one of the self-governing Dominions in the British Commonwealth of Nations. That envisages, I hope, a future Federal Government at the centre in India, and if that Federal Government is to function smoothly and properly, no matter by whom it may be controlled, it is essential that we in this House should make certain that we so frame its financial structure that it will be able to function

successfully and without the difficulty of financial stringency which might upset the whole constitutional settlement. Therefore, I feel that even on those wider grounds there is justification for the course which I am asking this Committee to take and I hope therefore that we shall be able to pass Clause 2 without the necessity of going into the Lobby to record our votes.

Sir W. Jowitt: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reply to a question I put to him which he has not dealt with at all? He has made a very eloquent speech which would have defended his proposals had his proposals been something to this effect—provided always that no tax upon employment may be levied if in fact it amounts to an income tax. That I quite understand. Instead of doing that he said that no tax on employment may exceed 5o rupees, which is a different value altogether. He did not deal with that, and we should like to know the explanation of that.

Sir H. O'Neill: I am sorry that I forgot that particular point. The limit has been put down at 50 rupees largely owing to practical difficulties in confining it in any other way, and I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to notice that in the proviso to Sub-section (2) of the Clause it is clear that any Province which at present has an employment or professions tax which is larger than 50 rupees may keep it. I believe that there is one Province where the tax is now' over 50 rupees, and this Clause will not affect it. There are only, I understand, two Provinces that have this tax in force as a provincial tax, and in each case it is considerably under 50 rupees. I think it varies from 28 to 30. This professions or employment tax has always been a tax of quite inconsiderable extent and I am informed that it was impracticable and quite impossible to find any way of suitably limiting the amount which could be imposed other than by putting in a specific sum.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Power to appoint acting puisne judges of the Federal Court.)

Amendment made: In page 6, line 39, after "court," at the end, add:


and the person so appointed shall, unless the Governor-General in his discretion thinks fit to revoke his appointment, be deemed to be a judge of the Federal Court until some person appointed by his Majesty to the vacant office has entered on the duties thereof, or until the permanent judge has resumed his duties."—[Sir H. O'Neill.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to Family Pension Funds.)

(1) In Sub-section (2) of Section two hundred and seventy-three of the principal Act (which relates to family pension funds)—

(a) for the words "the balance in the hands of the Governor-General on the thirty-first day of March next following the passing of this Act" there shall be substituted the words "the balance in the hands of the Secretary of State in Council on the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and thirty-seven";
(b) for the words "three years," in both places where those words occur, there shall be substituted the words "two years";
and in Sub-section (3) of the said Section, for the words "the Governor-General" there shall be substituted the words "the Secretary of State in Council."

(2) The Government of India (Family Pension Funds) Order, 1936, shall have effect and be deemed always to have had effect as if, in paragraphs ten, sixteen, twenty-two and twenty-five thereof, for the words "nineteen hundred and thirty-six" there were substituted the words "nineteen hundred and thirty-seven."—[Sir H. O'Neill.]

Brought up, read the First and Second times, and added to the Bill.

CLAUSE II.—(Confirmation of appointments to India Office staff and staff of Auditor of Indian Home Accounts.)

Amendments made:

In page 9, line 25, at the end, add:
284A.—(1) Any appointments which the Secretary of State in Council has purported to make to his permanent establishment before the commencement of Part III of this Act and any increases which he has purported to make in the salaries of persons on that establishment shall for all purposes be deemed to have been validly made notwithstanding that the making thereof was not sanctioned by an Order of His Majesty in Council as provided by Section seventeen of the Government of India Act.

In page 10, line 9, after "Act," add:
and all salaries paid to any person on the said Auditor's staff shall be deemed to have

been duly paid notwithstanding that they were not so authorised."—[Sir H. O'Neill.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to pensions of home civil servants appointed to offices in India.)

After Section three hundred and five of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following Section:

"305A.—(1) Where a civil servant, as defined by Section twelve of the Superannuation Act, 1887, is appointed by his Majesty or by the Governor-General in his discretion to any office under the Crown in India, the Secretary of State may direct that his service in that office shall qualify for the grant of a pension or gratuity as if it were service rendered in the office held by him as a civil servant immediately before his appointment to service in India, and there shall be paid to, or in respect of, him out of the revenues of the Federation and shall be charged on those revenues in respect of his service in that office in India a pension or gratuity calculated in accordance with the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1935, and the Orders, Rules and Regulations made there under, but on the basis of the salary of the office last held by him as a civil servant before his appointment to service in India:
Provided that nothing in the said Acts, Orders, Rules or Regulations shall operate to prevent the grant of a pension to him with effect from the date on which he may relinquish office in India, notwithstanding that at that date he may not have attained the age of sixty.

(2) No such direction as aforesaid shall be given in relation to service in any office if the service of the person in question in that office would qualify for the grant of a pension without any such direction.

(3) This Section shall apply to appointments made before the passing of this Act as well as to appointments made thereafter; and in relation to appointments made before the commencement of Part III of this Act, the reference to the Secretary of State shall be construed as a reference to the Secretary of State in Council."—[Sir If. O'Neill.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second times, and added to the Bill.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to pensions of home civil servants appointed to offices in Burma.)

After Section one hundred and fifty-one of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, there shall be inserted the following Section:

"151A.—(1) Where a civil servant, as defined by Section twelve of the Superannuation Act, 1887, is appointed by His Majesty or by the Governor in his discretion to any office under the Crown in Burma, the Secre-


tary of State may direct that his service in that office shall qualify for the grant of a pension or gratuity as if it were service rendered in the office held by him as a civil servant immediately before his appointment to service in Burma, and there shall be paid to, or in respect of, him out of the revenues of Burma and shall be charged on those revenues in respect of his service in that office in Burma a pension or gratuity calculated in accordance with the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1935, and the Orders, Rules and Regulations made thereunder, but on the basis of the salary of the office last held by him as a civil servant before his appointment to service in Burma:
Provided that nothing in the said Acts, Orders, Rules or Regulations shall operate to prevent the grant of a pension to him with effect from the date on which he may relinquish office in Burma, notwithstanding that at that date he may not have attained the age of sixty.

(2) No such direction as aforesaid shall be given in relation to service in any office if the service of the person in question in that office would qualify for the grant of a pension without any such direction."—[Sir H. O'Neill.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second times, and added to the Bill.

NEw CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 134 of Government of Burma Act, 1935.)

In Section one hundred and thirty-four of the Government of Burma Act, 1935 (which relates to the financial settlement as between India and Burma) for the words "the distribution of property and liabilities effected by this Act and the Government of India Act, 1935" there shall be substituted the words "the distribution of property, rights and liabilities effected by and under this Act and the Government of India Act, 1935."—[Sir H. O' Neill.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second times, and added to the Bill.

Clauses 16, 17, and 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

5.45 P.m.

Mr. Sorensen: Very briefly I would like to say that I must register my deep disappointment at the failure of the Government to appreciate exactly the significance of the Bill in regard to India and the impression which will be made on all classes of the Indian peoples who are most anxious to secure cordial cooperation with this country. I feel that

this Bill may be tightening up the Government of India Act in technical fashion but with regard to Clauses 2, 4 and certain others I feel they will do infinitely more harm than good. I much regret that my own party in this respect has not sufficiently exercised its responsibility to the people of India by going into the Lobby against Clause 2. I want to put it on record that the party which I represent in a humble capacity and some other Members of it do look with great apprehension on Clause 2, and further I desire to express deep regret that the Government has not seen its way to suspend this matter, withdraw those contentious Clauses, or, at least, suspend them in view of the grave difficulties which are confronting India at the present time.

5.48 p.m.

Sir W. Jowitt: The hon. Member who has just spoken has, in effect, said what I was going to say. The responsibility for this matter is not ours but that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Although in some respects it is a small matter in other respects it is a large matter. What is involved is no less than the implication that what we gave to India in the Government of India Act—that great charter, every line and word of which was so carefully considered between us and our Indian colleagues—was not a rock, not something which we offered to India as something by which we should stand, but something which we could amend whenever the shoe pinched, without consulting them and without any consideration of what their wishes might or might not be. It is that aspect of the matter which strikes me as very serious. If it is believed in India that this is the attitude we desire to adopt with regard to the Government of India Act and that we are going to exercise our legal right to amend it without full and adequate consultation with Indian opinion, it does seem to me that the chance of getting everything on a better understanding has been seriously prejudiced.
The excuse in this matter, namely, that income tax must be, and must remain, simply and solely the right and concern of the central body, seems altogether inadequate for this particular course. If that is what you have been doing all you need have said was that you could have


passed this Act and made it plain that no tax on employment might impose, under that guise, a tax on income. However, we have made our protest about this; we have made plain the view we hold and we have no desire to put any further difficulties in the way. The responsibility is the Government's and the right hon. Gentleman's opposite and I sincerely hope that the steps which he has taken to-day will not, as I fear they may, prejudice to any degree the happy relations we all desire to see exist between this country and India.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — GAS AND STEAM VEHICLES (EXCISE DUTIES) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Reduction of duties on gas and steam vehicles.)

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I beg to move, in page line 20, to leave out "half," and to insert "three-quarters of".
I have two other Amendments on the Paper—in line 22, to leave out "three-quarters" and to insert "one," and in line 25, to leave out "ton," and to insert "and a quarter tons"—but before we proceed to discuss these Amendments, may I raise a point of procedure and at the same time ask for your advice, Colonel Clifton Brown? May we discuss the first three Amendments together and have a reasonably wide Debate on them, because in our view the reasons which will be advanced for them apply with equal force to every other Amendment? If you agreed to this course, it would enable us to avoid repetition and restrict ourselves to as narrow limits as possible when the other Amendments were considered.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a matter on which I can give instructions to the Committee, but if hon. Members accept the proposal, which seems to be reasonable, we might have a fairly wide discussion now and a short discussion later.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. E. Smith: In moving my first Amendment, I desire to make a few observations as to why these Amendments should be accepted. All of them are designed to improve the Bill and make it conform to the need that arises out of the present situation. I would have wished that the Government Benches had been packed with Government supporters, because if they had heard the case which is going to be stated, I am confident they would have been concerned about the present position. We all realise the need for reduced imports and the bringing about of a wider utilisation of home-produced fuel. The other day we had a broadcast speech from the pilot of a seaplane, who said that in one day the amount of petrol consumed was equal to 25 years' coupon supply for the average motorist. That is an indication of the serious position with regard to the importation of petrol. If hon. Members had s before them the OFFICIAL REPORT for Tuesday, 12th December, they would see there that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, in introducing a Ways and Means Resolution, gave certain reasons for its introduction. But they have evidently not made allowance for the fact that during the conversion from petrol to home-produced fuel it would be necessary to carry on the vehicles two additional weights—one, the gas producer itself, and the other the gas container and purifier. In addition to that, conversion will mean in some cases a small loss in carrying capacity, and if we are to give a fillip to this new industry, it will be necessary for the Committee to accept the Amendment.
Let me give one or two examples of what has been done in other countries. Since 1935, in Germany, the taxation of vehicles using producer gas has been halved. From 1936 to 1939 a State subsidy of 500 marks was given for every converted vehicle and a subsidy of 600 marks for every new vehicle run by means of home-produced fuel. I am loth to quote what takes place in Germany, but it is a concrete example of what they have done in order to avoid the need for the importation of fuel. They have done it in order to conserve petrol to the maximum extent and at the same time to use home-produced fuel. In France they have given, from time to time, substantial concessions, and I hope hon. Members


will remember what I am going to quote now when we come to a further Amendment. In June, 1938, in France, a Decree was made that 10 per cent. of the vehicles belonging to concerns owning 10 or more vehicles had to be operated on home-produced fuel. Then we have the example of Italy, where all passenger vehicles have to operate on the same kind of fuel, and the State pay two-thirds of the conversion costs, because they realise that it is a business proposition to do so.
If that applies to all these countries, how much more does it apply to a country like ours, surrounded, as it is, by seas? We are a great industrial country, and our population depends for its movement on the utilisation of the internal combustion engine, and anyone examining this question from a scientific and business point of view is bound to come to the conclusion that this Bill requires to be radically altered on the lines suggested in order that we can play our proper part in the utilisation of our resources. The idea underlying these Amendments is to give road transport an inducement to carry out conversion to home-produced fuel and at the same time maintain and increase the volume of goods to be carried by road. If any of these Amendments cannot be accepted, I hope the Minister will consider the reasons we are putting forward and consider introducing some manuscript Amendments to give, so far as he can, more concessions.
In moving these Amendments and others, it appears on the surface that this will mean a loss in revenue. Indeed, several hon. Members on this side and the other side, in the Library and Lobbies, have during the last day or two agreed with the proposals but have said they would mean a loss of revenue in these difficult times. On the face of it that is what might occur, but if you analyse the situation, you will find that the concessions will, not mean a loss but a substantial increase in revenue. Let me give a typical example. Our proposal would mean a huge saving in petrol. We are importing into this country approximately £90,000,000 worth of petrol a year. That is a serious matter. Anyone who has studied the international situation and its effect on the economy of this country is bound to see the need for economising in the imports of petrol. That brings you to this position, auto-

matically, that, being an industrial country, where we have to maintain the maximum amount of transport, we must consider some other form of motive power.
Our Amendments would mean a huge saving in the imports of petrol. In addition, they would obviate the need for a number of convoys for tankers bringing petrol into the country. Again, look at the enormous expenditure connected with our Naval and Air units, all of which would be released if we could swing over to the maximum extent to home-produced fuel. We desire that the road transport system of this country should be run as efficiently as possible and brought into a state of activity corresponding to the needs of the nation. I can visualise a situation, as a result of enemy action, in which we might be sorry unless we had organised our transport system to its maximum carrying capacity, so that in the event of enemy air raids on our railways it would he possible to utilise road transport immediately. I hope the Minister of Transport will withdraw the letter of 20th January. It is part of a policy of discouragement which is being pursued. The letter is from the Ministry of Transport, Metropole Buildings, and is as follows:
I am directed by the Minister of Transport to refer to your letter, and to inform you that arrangements have been made under which a basic ration of petrol, at the rate of one-sixth of the normal basic ration for the vehicle in question is issued in respect of vehicles propelled by producer gas appliance. Under this arrangement a vehicle of over half a ton but under one ton unladen weight would receive a basic ration of two units of fuel a fortnight.
If this policy is carried out, it will discourage people from experimenting with the conversion to gas-produced fuel, and I want to ask the Minister that at least for six months, while the experiment is taking place, he will withdraw that letter. The hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Captain Elliston) asked the Secretary for Mines
whether, following a recent lapse of many thousands of motor car licences, he will sanction increased petrol rations for motor vehicles used for appropriate commercial purposes?
The hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah) also asked the Minister of Transport
whether he is aware that efforts are being made by the district transport offices of Wolverhampton compulsorily to divert goods from road haulage to the railways; that this


threatens to deprive a number of men of their jobs; and what action does he propose to take?
Why is this policy being pursued? Why is road transport being discouraged? Why is pressure being brought to bear on firms to send their traffic by rail? The Committee is entitled to an answer to all these questions. But it is not only what appears on the surface; there is something going on behind the scenes. I am not blaming the Minister as an individual, but he has to accept responsibility, and before we part with this Bill we are entitled to have an answer to these questions and an explanation of what is going on behind the scenes. Will the speed limit of vehicles be affected by the additional weight caused by fitting the gas producer; and will passenger vehicles be affected? From the point of view of national economy, we say that our proposal is a good business proposition. We are not speaking of this from a Socialist point of view or a Labour point of view, but from a national point of view, and we say that it is a good business proposition to give road transport an incentive to carry out this conversion. I think that transport companies should be given no excuse for not embarking on the capital expenditure involved as soon as possible.
Anyone who is acquainted with our industrial centres knows the difficulty of our people. We still have appalling queues of men and women at our mines and steel works, standing for 10 and 15 minutes waiting for a bus. I know it can be said that the Minister of Transport has dealt with the matter within certain limits, but the position is still very difficult in many areas. I do not want to speak too definitely on this matter, because I do not want to give anything away which may help other people, but in many areas large munition factories are now being constructed, with the result that thousands of men and women are being brought there from other parts of the country. They have to be transported to and from their employment, and it is having a serious effect on the normal employment in the locality. It shows the need for the conversion as soon as possible of the maximum number of omnibuses from petrol to home-produced fuel, so that we can keep pace with the developments in industrial areas.
In 1934 the Government were prepared to make a concession of this character to some extent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in 1934 were prepared to face a loss of revenue of between 4d. and 8d. a gallon on home-produced petrol. If they were prepared to do that then, I think they should be prepared to do the same now. It is true that pressure was brought to bear at that time by well-organised vested interests. I do not want to be controversial on this matter; I want to be as reasonable as possible, in order that our proposals may be accepted. I am moving the Amendment in order to encourage transport concerns to save petrol and use home-produced fuel, with a view to the efficient mobilisation of the whole of the road transport system of this country.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I desire to support the Amendment. It is quite clear that it is desirable that an alternative form of propulsion should be encouraged. A reference to the Bill will indicate that no reduction is suggested in the rate of duty chargeable on the respective weights, and, therefore, we cannot get any concession in that direction. The only direction in which we can expect to get a concession will be by way of an allowance, as we suggest, in the actual net weight of the vehicle. That, we think, would be a rational concession, not a great one, and one which in the circumstances I think might be conceded. The Committee will be well aware that such concessions have been made before particularly in the production of oil from coal. Substantial concessions were made in order to encourage the production of fuel. Now the position is intensified, and an opportunity is afforded to relieve the pressure on our petrol supplies. Foreign countries have taken the step; they have been driven to do so by the pressure of war, and, as we have learned, in enemy countries it is not permissible to consume petrol at all in commercial vehicles upon the roads. Therefore, we have an opportunity of extending and in many cases creating a new home-produced fuel.
It would also aid the mining industry. How urgently have the miners' representatives in this House pressed upon the attention of the Government the necessity for utilising the opportunities which


science has placed within their reach to produce power from coal and to utilise coal in a diversity of ways in order to assist the mining industry. Because of powerful interests there is little doubt that unfortunately petrol still holds the field against any other form of fuel which science might place in the hands of the Government. It is essential in this struggle that there should be a reduction in the supplies which it is necessary to obtain from overseas, and this alternative form of fuel would be a great step in assisting us in the conduct of the campaign. In placing before the country this suggested change-over, a change-over which might become compulsory if petrol supplies should become too scarce, there is one thing which the Government ought to remember, and that is the impossibility of making the change-over on a commercial vehicle of 20 horse-power at a cost of less than £80 or £100. For this reason, some concession ought to be made, and I suggest that if the Government would accept these Amendments, they would go some distance to meet the additional heavy cost involved in the production of containers and producer-gas machines.
During the last year or two, the Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Company have been making experiments of this sort on heavy vehicles, omnibuses, and so on. They have tried two methods. The first was the use of ordinary pressure gas, of which an ordinary vehicle can contain in a bag an amount equal to only one and a quarter gallons of petrol. It is obvious that with this method the vehicles would be able to travel only short distances without being replenished, and although this is the easiest method of handling the gas, it is an uneconomic one, owing to the difficulty of the short distances. Another method which they tried was that of putting the gas under a pressure of 3,000 lbs. per square inch. In doing that, they were, of course, competing with Diesel oil. After the experiment had been tried for several months, it was found to be an impracticable proposition. I mention these facts only to give an example of a concern which, at its own expense, initiated this new form of propulsion in the North of England, and to show that there is required some assistance such as we are suggesting should be conceded to this new industry. There is one question I should like to ask. It

may come within the realm of practical economics to run machines on ordinary pressure gas that is drawn from the mains. In that event, it will be necessary for such vehicles, being dependent on only a small supply of gas, to carry also a small supply of petrol for emergency purposes. The Bill seems to lay down that if any petrol is carried, that will exclude the vehicle from the advantages of the Bill. The proposition to which I have referred would seem to be a reasonable one in seeking alternative forms of propulsion.

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Member now seems to be going beyond the Amendment.

Mr. James Griffiths: On a point of Order, Sir Charles. When your predecessor was in the Chair, it was generally agreed that the first three Amendments should be taken together and that we should have a wide debate upon them with a view to shortening the later discussion. I hope you will find it possible to continue that arrangement.

The Temporary Chairman: I was under the impression that the hon. Member was going beyond these Amendments.

Mr. Batey: It was clearly understood, Sir Charles, that we should have a wide debate now and curtail the discussion later.

Mr. David Adams: With great respect, I understood that we were to be permitted to stray from the narrow path on these Amendments, but that later on the discussion would be strictly confined to the Amendment under discussion. I will not say anything further now, except to express the hope that the Minister will give a reply on the point I have raised, as there are many people in the North of England who are experimenting in this way with low-pressure gas. I think the proposals contained in the Amendments are so reasonable that, since the Bill has obviously been introduced for the direct purpose of inducing the community generally to employ a new emergency fuel, the Government may well look favourably upon them, or meet us in some other way.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Amendments referred to propose a variety of ways in which we believe it would be possible for


the Government to give what we consider to be essential, namely, an incentive to this new industry. In speaking on this Measure last Wednesday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport said that all the Bill does is to remove disabilities which otherwise would hinder the development of producer gas. That actually is all that the Bill does. It removes the handicaps, and does nothing more. While we agree that it would indeed be very bad at a time such as this if any handicaps remained on the development of this industry, we do not think the Bill does enough, and that is the reason these Amendments have been placed on the Order Paper.
We are at the beginning of the struggle. None of us knows whether it will be long or short, although we hope it will be short. We are confronted with a whole range of problems, of which one is transport. To-day, at Question Time, the Minister of Transport had to answer a large number of Questions, many of them calling attention to very grave complaints about road transport, rail transport, and all the problems that arise. There is no doubt that at the present time transport is an immense problem which we are far from having solved. I will mention only one aspect of it, which is very important. I see on the Treasury Bench the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who was for many years Secretary for Mines, and also the present Secretary for Mines. All those Members of the Government who are interested in the matter are here. Last week, I asked the Secretary for Mines what progress was being made with the programme which he had outlined for increasing the country's coal production. The hon. Gentleman had announced that the Cabinet thought it was desirable, and indeed essential, that we should increase the production of coal by 30,000,000 tons above the 1938 level. Last week, in replying to my Question, the hon. Gentleman refused to tell me what increase had already been ensured.
I do not make any complaint about his refusal to tell me, because I quite understand the reasons for it; but we know perfectly well that at this moment production is not at the rate of 30,000,000 tons a year greater than it was in 1938. The hon. Gentleman gave the reason. He cited the substantial reason that the increase in the production

of coal is being hampered and held back by a lack of railway transport. There is so much pressure upon the railways, so many calls upon the wagons of the country, that the plan of the Cabinet for increasing coal production has been held back. That is a matter of immense importance, because if we are to meet the many problems that confront us, one of the things we must do is to increase our export trade, and among other things, that calls for an increase in coal production.
I mention that matter merely to indicate that the question of transport is of tremendous importance. Railway transport is congested. Road transport now has to meet two grave difficulties; one of them is a difficulty common to vehicles whether they be driven by petrol or producer-gas, namely, the difficulty of the black-out which we discussed last night; and the other is the difficulty caused by the very severe rationing of petrol, which may have to be still more severely rationed. Therefore, as I see it, the first problem we have to face is the very big one of trying to make our railway system carry all the traffic that we want it to carry. If we are to do that, we must find some ways and means of diverting to the roads some of the traffic now on the railways, and we must do that without making too many calls upon the petrol supplies, which obviously are required in the first instance for the Armed Forces. That means that this Committee, the House, and the country ought to look with very great favour upon every proposal to develop alternative fuels.
Although this is not the occasion to develop the point, I agree with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) that the development of alternative fuels from coal has been retarded by vested interests. The Government have some vested interest in oil. I do not suggest for a moment that the Government have joined hands completely with those vested interests, but they have been very friendly with them, and I say deliberately that the development of the industry of producing oil from coal has been kept back in the interests of the oil industry of this country. The time has come when the country ought to say to the Government that the nation must come first and that vested interests ought to be placed on one side.
I hope there will not be any vested interests that will delay or handicap the development of this new fuel.
I do not intend this evening to speak about the technical side of the matter, but I am interested in the subject because it happens that the coal which is best suited to the production of producer-gas is mined in the area in which I live and a great deal of it in the constituency which I represent. It is anthracite coal; but although for the moment anthracite coal and coke are the most easily converted into producer-gas, steps are being taken and technical researches being made, and I believe it is confidently expected that the range of coals from which the gas can be produced will be widened very shortly. In that connection, I noticed in the Press this week that the representatives of these various industries have set up a large and very important committee. I will not read out the names of those on the committee, but if the Secretary for Mines wishes, I will hand him the list. This committee has been appointed to do everything in its power to support this new development. They have to consider two problems, first, the problem of designing apparatus and, secondly, the problem of whether it is possible to widen the range of coals which can be used. They are men who are well-known in the coal-mining and other industries, and this is an indication that these people, with their commercial and technical knowledge, are convinced that there is a possibility of developing this form of propulsion and that to do so will be of great advantage to the country.
I repeat an example which was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. George Hall) last week, because I think the Committee ought to realise what this means. It is now beyond the experimental stage. The Secretary for Mines said that the committee appointed to see what could be done to make this a commercial success had evolved a design for conversion and that they were willing to place the design at the disposal of any suitable firm willing to act on the design and produce the apparatus. Some time ago an urban district council which owned bus services covering a mining area in the eastern part of Glamorgan were very interested in helping this new development. They felt that if they used producer-gas they would be running their buses on home-produced

fuel and perhaps providing work in the area. Therefore, they got a bus adapted for the purpose and this report is given on the result:
The chairman of the committee said that his department had converted one of their existing lorries to run on producer-gas. It had cost £1 2s. 6d. in petrol to take the lorry to the works for conversion. At the works it was converted so that it could be driven by producer-gas and I cwt. of coke costing 2S. brought that lorry all the way back.
That is one example which proves the possibilities of this new development.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: What was the cost of conversion?

Mr. Griffiths: Speaking from memory, I think it was round about£95. If these figures can be taken as a basis, the cost of conversion will be met by the reduction in the running costs. I do not think there can be two questions about the fact that it is desirable that this new development should be encouraged now. It is essential to find some alternative to petrol at the present time. The only question is how to encourage its use, and the real difference between the attitude of the Government and the view expressed in these Amendments is this. The Government think that all they have to do is to remove disabilities and let the industry look after itself. We go further and say that there ought to be positive action. Not only should the handicap be removed, but there should be positive encouragement and that is what we propose in these Amendments. There are many ways in which the Government ought to assist the industry and I think they will not be acting in the national interest unless they give it every encouragement. Therefore, we invite the Minister of Transport and the Secretary for Mines, whose Departments are vitally concerned, to consider these proposals.
Why should this country lag behind every other country in this respect? This country produces a marvellous range of coal. It produces the best anthracite coal and the richest coke in the world. Yet we lag behind every other country in Europe in the production of fuel from coal. Germany is now producing—it may be said that she is compelled to do so—47 per cent. of her current requirements of oil from her coal. We ought to develop the production of oil from our own coal. Germany, France and Italy


have all done years ago what we are urging to-night. This removal of disabilities is nothing new. Some countries have gone further and have made the use of producer-gas compulsory in certain kinds of road transport, because they think it essential in the interests of national economy to conserve other fuels. The Government ought to take steps either by accepting these Amendments, or by producing some other way in which this new development can be encouraged. Let them give a positive lead and encouragement to this industry, not only in the interests of coal-mining, but in the far wider interests of the nation. I hope that, before the Debate closes, we shall hear from the representatives of the Government, either that they accept these Amendments, or that they will take some other positive steps to encourage this new development.

6.37 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bernays): I agree with the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that the Government and the Opposition have the same objective in this matter, and I would like to make that perfectly clear at the outset. We on this side are as anxious as are hon. Members opposite to encourage the use of producer gas, and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Transport, who is responsible for the efficient working of the country's transport system is particularly anxious to do so. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) raised the question of the bus services. I know what a problem that is in his constituency as in many other constituencies, and I have done my best to help. The hon. Member for Llanelly mentioned the difficulties of the railways, and certainly these have been very much brought home to me in the last few days at the Ministry of Transport as a result of the present cold spell. I am sure that my right hon. and gallant Friend is as anxious as anyone in this Committee to develop the system of gas propulsion. I fully agree that it is an alternative system of transport, and we are anxious to do everything we can to encourage the growth of that alternative system. We are certainly most anxious not to put any obstacle in the way.
The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) questioned whether those

vehicles which have been converted to gas propulsion were allowed to carry petrol. I have made inquiries, and I can assure him most certainly that they are. The hon. Member for Stoke also raised the question of the petrol allowance. We fully realise that it will be necessary to have a small amount of petrol to run these producer-gas vehicles, and owners of such vehicles will certainly get the allowance which they require for that purpose. He also raised the question of the speed limit. That is being dealt with by regulation, and I think that, when the regulations are laid on the Table by my right hon. and gallant Friend, the hon. Member will find that they are what he has in mind.
I understand from the Amendments that hon. Members want further tax concessions, and the first concession for which they wish is a greater allowance for weight. The allowances for weight have been most carefully considered by our technical experts, and, on the whole, I think it can be said that these weight allowances, if they err at all err on the generous side. This was deliberately done. We tried to be as generous as we could, because we wanted to avoid any subsequent complaint that the Government had failed to implement its undertaking that no increase in taxation would result, if an owner converted his vehicle from petrol to gas propulsion. As a matter of fact we have had no representation from any interest on this point. We have every reason to believe that these allowances do meet the Government's pledge, but I think I can safely say that if it is discovered that these allowances are not sufficient and do not carry out the Government's pledge, we will examine the position again to see what can be done in that respect.
The main plea put to us, however, by hon. Gentlemen opposite is that these vehicles, once they have been converted to gas propulsion, should be exempted from taxation. I am afraid that is something which goes far beyond the Government's original pledge. After all, exemption from taxation of gas-propelled vehicles would place petrol vehicles and electrically-propelled vehicles at a considerable disadvantage. It would, in fact, conflict with a general principle from which, I am sure, this Committee would


be most reluctant to depart—the principle that no undue preference should be given to one type of vehicle on the road as compared with another.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The argument might do very well in ordinary times, that the Government should hold the balance equally between one and the other, but you do not hold the balance now. You are rationing petrol. You are controlling, not holding a balance. Surely, at a time like this it is for the Government to indicate, by tax remission and in other ways, the desirability of diverting traffic from one form of propulsion to the other.

Mr. Bernays: I think the hon. Member has really made my case, because, in fact, while petrol is being rationed, we are not rationing the raw materials for gas propulsion.

Mr. Griffiths: You are not rationing coal now, but you did.

Mr. Bernays: In any case such a tax concession as is proposed in these Amendments would involve a serious potential loss of revenue, to which, in existing circumstances, it is impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to agree.

Mr. David Adams: On a point of Order. Is the Minister not now dealing with a subsequent Amendment which asks for remission for three years?

The Temporary-Chairman: Since I intervened when the hon. Member was speaking earlier, I have had a consultation with the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, from whom I understand that it was agreed that a very wide discussion should be allowed.

Mr. Adams: Do I understand, then, that we are dealing now with all the Amendments on the Paper?

The Temporary-Chairman: I understand that the arrangement was that the discussion should be as wide as possible and that subsequently the Amendments should be put forthwith.

Mr. E. Smith: On a point of Order. My understanding was that on the first three Amendments the discussion would be as reasonably wide as possible, and, in order to avoid a repetition, it was agreed that that should be so, and that on subsequent Amendments we should con-

fine ourselves as narrowly as possible to each Amendment.

The Temporary Chairman: I am not able to give a Ruling, because I was not here when the question arose.

Mr. Bernays: The point with which I was dealing was that which asked for some special taxation concession, and rather than wait for the actual Amendment, the Committee was dealing with it now. A proposal put forward in one of the Amendments is that these vehicles should be exempt from taxation for three years, and I was about to point out that from goods vehicles the Chancellor of the Exchequer receives as much as £12,000,000 a year. If this conversion to gas propulsion is a success, as we hope it will be, and these vehicles are exempted from taxation, it will mean a serious loss to the Treasury. Supposing 50 per cent. of the vehicles were converted, and they were exempted from taxation, there would be a loss of £6,000,000, and I am sure in present circumstances hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they consider the position, will see that it is impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take an action which in these days would deprive him of a very substantial amount of revenue.
I tried to follow as carefully as I could the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke when he said that this loss of revenue would be made up in other directions. I think it would be very difficult to prove that it would be made up to the extent of the loss. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have asked the Government to give a further inducement to conversion, and they have talked as if the only inducement that is offered is the removal of this disability with regard to taxation. They say that in fact we have given a very small inducement. Well, if this inducement, this tax remission, stood alone, then I should be inclined to agree that perhaps the inducement to conversion to gas propulsion was relatively small; but, after all, it does not stand alone. The real inducement to conversion is that the fuel for gas-propelled vehicles will be untaxed and unrationed, and I ask the hon. Member for Llanelly, who said we were giving no inducements, to examine in fact what a great fillip it will give to conversion with the alternative fuel untaxed and unrationed. In the first place it will make for cheaper run-


ning as compared with petrol. It has been estimated that the cost for using producer gas fuel will be equivalent to using petrol at 5d. or 7d. per gallon, and when we recall that petrol to-day is 1s. 10d. per gallon, we see what a tremendous advantage it is in connection with running costs.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly really drove home my argument in the illustration which he gave, the same as the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. George Hall) the other day, of a case where a petrol-driven vehicle from South Wales to the Midlands cost in petrol alone for the journey something like 22s., and where, after the vehicle had been converted into producer gas, the cost of bringing it back the same distance was only 3s. Clearly it is a very positive help and a very positive inducement for conversion from petrol to gas. I think an even more important inducement is the fact that the fuel will be unrationed. After all, the hardest burden now placed on owners of goods vehicles is that their petrol is rationed and that their business is restricted as a result. But here is an opportunity for the motor trade and owners of goods vehicles to circumvent, as it were, the petrol ration. I believe they will seize the opportunity with both hands. I am informed by the Mines Department that they have already had 450 inquiries about this new apparatus and that the Department has reason to believe that some 20 firms have already decided upon manufacture. I think that these facts indicate that manufacturers are ready to respond to the needs of the situation and that already we are in sight of achieving a very real increase in the production of gas-propelled vehicles, which is the objective of both sides of the Committee.

Mr. J. Griffiths: How far does that pledge extend? Is it a pledge which will be kept right through hostilities? Can the hon. Gentleman give any idea whether it is a time-limit pledge?

Mr. Bernays: That was a pledge with regard to the non-taxation of fuel for five years.

Mr. Griffiths: The Parliamentary Secretary said also that first of all there was a coal rationing scheme introduced which had to be withdrawn, giving us a

100 per cent. ration at the moment. Does the pledge that there will be no rationing for fuel of this kind stand although there may be general rationing?

Mr. Bernays: There is no intention by the Government to ration coal in this connection.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. F. Anderson: I do not want to be at all parochial in connection with this matter, because I believe that all forms of transport are necessary for the good running of this country. I do not want to set road transport off against rail transport. It must be borne in mind that the railways are very large users of road transport, and, as a matter of fact, prior to the war they were, I think, the biggest single users of road-transport vehicles in the whole of the country. I look at this matter from the standpoint of what effect these proposals can have upon the general transport of this country, and, in saying that, I feel that there is very great room for improvement beyond the encouragement that has already been given. I do not want to speak, either, on any particular coal fuel, because I look at this question as a whole. However, I could give quotations for the information of this Committee of cases where certain road-transport vehicles have been run on Yorkshire coal very successfully for a considerable length of time.
But I want to look at the question from another angle. Why should not this form of transport, if it is cheaper, be available to everyone? The working-class people in particular have to use buses to and from their employment, and I think every encouragement should be given so that they can benefit from the lesser running costs by reduced fares. Some of our large corporations in this country, and some of the big bus companies, as a result of the increased cost of petrol, are raising the price of fares, and the working-class people are being called upon to pay this increase in cost. When the argument is used that the price of petrol is so much to-day, I say that it is an inflated price and that it is an unfair comparison. I think the comparison should have been made on pre-war costs and prices. If that were done, it would be found that the economy, if the proper inducements were given to this form of transport, would be very extensive, and people as a whole would benefit very considerably


should this form of propulsion be used. There is another point. If we can keep down the importation of any commodity and thus help the home-produced article, we are reducing the cost and helping—

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): I promised the Committee that we might go fairly wide in the discussion, but I think the hon. Member is going right outside the scope of the Bill. After all, this is a limited Bill, and we must not make the discussion too wide; otherwise I should have to revise the Ruling that I gave.

Mr. Anderson: Before you, Colonel Clifton Brown, came into the Chair, I think the discussion went wider than I have gone up to the moment. I have to bow to your Ruling, but may I just say that the reason why I was quoting this point was that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport referred to the question of loss of revenue. If that can be mentioned by the Minister, there should be the possibility of some reply.

The Deputy-Chairman: Of course, I was not here then, and I did not hear the point made by the Minister, but it seems to me that, although the hon. Member is entitled to refer to it, he is not entitled to go into detailed arguments on imports and exports, which is a very much wider ground. It is going far beyond that which is allowable.

Mr. Anderson: I was speaking of the advantage that can accrue to industry as a whole by the taxation being reduced in the way proposed and, seeing that the loss of revenue was mentioned, I was, incidentally, bringing in the export side. However, if your Ruling is that I cannot pursue that course, I shall certainly submit to it. There is another point with regard to undue preference. In the introduction of this new element of propulsion other valuable commodities that are produced as a result of producing the gas ought to be taken into consideration. If they are, consideration ought to be given to a reduction in taxation. The great engineering, motor car, and lorry-producing firms ought to be brought into consultation to see in what way they can speed up the production of the articles which are required to make the conversion to gas-producer plant as early as possible, because the bigger the conversion can be, the better it will be for the

country, especially in present circumstances. If the encouragement of which the Minister has spoken means anything, the Government ought at least to agree in principle to a reduction of taxation.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Batey: I was sorry to hear the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, because, if I understood it aright, it meant that there was no intention of giving any consideration to the Amendments on the Paper. If that is the position of the Government, the Parliamentary Secretary is simply standing to-night where he stood last week. We have moved a step or two since then, but the Parliamentary Secretary does not seem to have moved a step. When he made his Second Reading speech last week it was understood by many Members that this was a Bill that would go through easily, without debate. It was only when my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) pointed out the possibilities of this Bill that we realised what was in it and succeeded in getting the Government to put off the Committee stage until this week. That was done so that the Opposition might put down Amendments to make the Bill a better Measure. We also hoped that the Government would be able to come to night with something fresh in their minds in order to improve the Bill. It was clearly understood last week that although this Bill went a step, it did not go far enough and that it was necessary to make it a better Bill. The Government, however, seem to be standing where they stood last week and to want to force the Bill on the House without any improvements.
The Minister said that the Opposition and the Government had the same objective in the Bill. The objective is not the same. The objective of the Government, if I have understood the Minister aright, is merely to put the gas-propelled vehicles on the same level as petrol vehicles. We want to go further than that and encourage vehicles to use gas. I admit that we, as miners' representatives, want that in the interest of our industry first. We have been pleading in the House for years for the Government to set up plant to extract oil from coal so as to help the industry. The Government would not do it, and in this Bill we see a chance to help the industry. Because of the blackout there has been an enormous reduc-


tion in the production of gas. That will reflect itself upon the production of coal, and we believe that this Bill can be the means of encouraging the production of gas and the erection of low-temperature plant to produce the gas for use on vehicles.
When we urged the Government to set up plant for extracting oil from coal we argued that if the time came when we were at war, it would be difficult to get oil to this country. Germany wants oil and is prepared to go to Rumania for it, and we read that even Russia is feeling the need of more oil. This country will be in the same position before long. It will need all the oil it can get for war purposes, and we shall wake up one morning to find the Minister of Mines preventing the use of petrol in vehicles. Because the Government will need all the petrol they can get, they should not merely be satisfied with putting gas-propelled vehicles on the same footing as those using petrol, but should encourage conversion into gas-propelled vehicles. We feel so strongly on this question that if the Minister maintains his stand, we shall have to register our opposition in the Division Lobby.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. S. O. Davies: As a coal miner, I want to express my extreme dissatisfaction with the stone-wall attitude that has been taken by the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary. With my hon. Friends, I was not without hope that some changes would be worked into this Bill, but the Government are adopting the same old conservative, reactionary attitude towards anything associated with coal that they have shown from the time I first came to the House. It is useless for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that the Government have the same objective as we have on these benches. That is not true, and there is nothing in the history of the Government to justify the Parliamentary Secretary making a statement of that kind. One regrets to say this of a young Minister like the Parliamentary Secretary, but it seems to be becoming the habit of the Government, whenever any progressive idea has to be stone-walled, to call upon a Parliamentary Secretary to do it. We refuse to believe that the Government have the same objective as we have. As coal miners we strongly protest against the old

reactionary, conservative Standard Oil interests which seem to influence the Government every time the question of extracting oil from coal comes before the House.
The Government can claim very little credit for having brought this Bill into being. I know that designs and specifications could be obtained from the Ministry of Mines, but not before the producer-gas vehicle had passed well beyond the experimental stage and was, in fact, running in many parts of the country. Months ago I saw a producer-gas vehicle in my own constituency, where a bus had been converted, and as a passenger in it I could not see that it was in any way inferior to a petrol bus. All that the Government have done has been to anticipate the enormous public pressure for this change which they knew must arise during the war in view of the fact that it costs us dear in lives to bring oil fuel to this country. Many perils are now being run which could have been avoided had the appeals made from this bench in the past met with response from the Government. We should not be seeing the lives of our people sacrificed in their efforts to bring oil fuel to this country from remote parts of the world.
As a coal miner I must protest against the attitude of the Government. I have seen half a million men and boys driven out of the coal mining industry as a result, largely, either of the policy of this Government or its deliberate refusal to adopt any progressive plans for the development of the mining industry. I am glad that my hon. Friends have decided to take a stand on this matter. Frankly, we want to draw the attention of the country to the stone-walling attitude which has been adopted by the Government. We are not asking the Government to adventure upon anything which is in an experimental stage; things have gone beyond that. The people in our depressed areas have already begun the construction of these producer-gas vehicles, and I am expressing their desires, as well as the desires of thousands of miners in my own and other contituencies, in asking that the Government should do something big, do something decent, at least do the right thing for this great industry, which has suffered so much—that they should "cut the painter" and free themselves from the great oil interests which have


got them now as they have had them for many years.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: I should like to take the opportunity to point out something that is happening in the Committee tonight. I do not suppose that heated rhetoric or impassioned appeals to the Government will bring any more conviction than there is in their minds at the moment that to run vehicles by gas-produced motive power is much cheaper than to run them on petrol. Now is the time when the Government should feel convinced that they ought to save petrol by using such a cheap substitute as producer-gas, and I take it that the Government are already convinced on that point; but I say that if some divine genius could discover to-morrow how to run buses by some form of magnetism or on cold water, we should still find the same adamant opposition on the Treasury Bench. This is very instructive for students of politics and economics. I heard the latter part of the speech of the Minister to-day, and I knew perfectly well that he was not making that speech out of the convictions in his own heart. He was the mouthpiece of the Treasury. He had been told to say—even if we could get the vehicles run for nothing at all—that the Treasury must get taxes from somewhere. That is the crux of the whole matter, is it not? I heard the Minister say, "If you do this, that, and the other, if you adopt this new method of running buses and other vehicles, the Treasury will lose £6,000,000." As a good Liberal the Minister asked, "Where can we get the money if we lose it from the vehicles?" He knows perfectly well, without my telling him, that one advantage of sticking to a principle in this House is that one does not need to mention it. I can assure him that there need be no difficulty about getting that £6,000,000 if he will take back our view to the Treasury.
What I want to impress upon the Committee is how the vicious system of taxation which is prevalent in this and every other country becomes an impediment immediately any progressive suggestion is put forward. We are witnessing it to-day. This is not a question of employing miners or anybody else. We are following here the hard process which must be carried out under the canons of taxation accepted by this so-called

civilised State, namely, that no improvement brought forth by science or art, whether it be producer-gas or anything else, will be assisted by the State. I do not mean to suggest that its development should be assisted by grants or subsidies from the State. What I mean is that the State should take its unholy fangs off the improvement. But the State will not do that, because it must get its taxes. So, to-day, we see a Minister standing at that Box who is not the master of his own destiny. He has been told by the Treasury what he has to say, and although, as an old Liberal, he would like in his heart of hearts to assist progress, he dare not do so. He is "cabin'd, cribb'd, and confined." Within the confines of a so-called, shall I say, National Government, he has to sink his good Liberal principles—

Mr. Bernays: Mr. Bernays indicated dissent.

Mr. MacLaren: If I am saying anything that is wrong, please correct me. He has to stand here shamefacedly and tell the Opposition side of the Committee that despite the advantages of scientific progress, despite the fact that we could bring down the cost of transport and, therefore the cost of production, despite the fact that this would be an almost Heaven-sent blessing to the country at large, it cannot be allowed because the Treasury is frightened of it. Let this be a lesson to the House of Commons. I am speaking through the Ministry back to the Treasury—if it is any use talking to the Treasury. So rooted are the Treasury in their stupidity and the prejudices of the past, that any improvement suggested by Parliament will be allowed free development only in so far as it will not rob the Treasury. Let the Minister go back to the Treasury and tell them that they have been discovered by the House of Commons, that we know that if it were found possible to run motor buses upon water, the Treasury would still say, "Tax them. Tax anybody who attempts progress or attempts to improve the standard of life of the people, but let those who historically hold the land pay nothing at all."

Question put, "That word 'half' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayres, 157; Noes, 103.

Division No. 4.]
AYES.
[7.20 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Pym, L. R.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Grimston, R. V.
Radford, E. A.


Albery, Sir Irving
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Raikas, H. V. A. M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Assheton, R.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hepworth, J.
Robertson, D.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Higgs, W. F.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Holdsworth, H.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Bernays, R. H.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Blair, Sir R.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Salt, E. W.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Boulton, W. W.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Brass, Sir W.
Jennings, R.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Joel, D. J. B.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Scott, Lord William


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Smith, Braoewell (Dulwich)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Bull, B. B.
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Snadden, W. McN.


Butcher, H. W.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Cary, R. A.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Colman, N. C. D.
Levy, T.
Spens, W. P.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Storey, S.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lloyd, G. W.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cranborne, Viscount
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Sutcliffe, H.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
McCorquodale, M. S.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Titchfield, Marquess of


Crowder, J. F. E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Touche, G. C.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Culverwell, C. T.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Davidson, Viscountess
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mitchell, Col. H. (Brentt'd &amp; Chisw'k)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Denville, Alfred
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Doland, G. F.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Dunglass, Lord
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Eastwood, J. F.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Weston, W. G.


Edmendson, Major Sir J.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
White, Sir R. D. (Fareham)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Ellis, Sir G.
Nail, Sir J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel C.


Emery, J. F.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wise, A. R.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Etherton, Ralph H.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Peake, O.



Fildes, Sir H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Pownalt, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Munro.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Procter, Major H. A.





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Lunn, W.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H[...]lsbr.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
McEntee, V. La T.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Groves, T. E.
MacLaren, A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Maclean, N.


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Batey, J.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Mander, G. le M.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Hardie, Agnes
Maxton, J.


Bensen, G.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Milner, Major J.


Bevan, A.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Montague, F.


Burke, W. A.
Hayday, A.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)


Cape, T.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.


Daggar, W. G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Paling, W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Isaacs, G. A.
Parker, J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jackson, W. F.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Dobbie, W.
Jagger, J.
Price, M. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Pritt, D. N.


Ede, J. C.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Ridley, G.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
John, W.
Ritson, J.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Frankel, D.
Lathan, G.
Shinwell, E.


Gallacher, W.
Lawson, J. J.
Silkin, L.


Gardner, B. W.
Lee, F.
Silverman, S. S.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Leonard, W.
Sloan, A.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, E. (Stoke)







Smith, T. (Normanton)
Tinker, J. J.
Williams, T. (Dan Valley)


Sorensen, R. W.
Tomlinson, G.
Wilmot, John


Stephen, C.
Viant, S. P.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Watson, W. McL.
Woodburn, A.


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Welsh, J. C.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Whiteley, W. (Blaydan)



Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wilkinson, Ellon
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thorns, W.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Adamson.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, at the beginning, to insert:
No duty shall be chargeable in respect of any vehicle which is adapted to the use of gas for a period of three years following the financial year in which such adaptation was effected, and thereafter.
Hon. Members who were present when the previous Amendment was moved will agree that the same reasons apply with the same force to this Amendment. No one will doubt that the principle of it is right; the only doubt that we have on this side is whether the period should be three years, two years, or one year. The very least that we are entitled to expect is that, if the Minister is not prepared to accept the Amendment as it stands, he should consider the introduction of a manuscript Amendment to insert either "two years" or "one year."

Mr. David Adams: I beg to support the Amendment.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Bernays: I have already indicated the reasons why if is impossible for me to ask the Committee to accept this Amendment. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) made an appeal to me and asked whether it would make any difference if there could be an exemption from tax for one year or two years. I am afraid it would not. There would still be a loss of several million pounds which in the present circumstances it would be impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to agree to.

Captain Strickland: rose—

The Temporary - Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): Does the hon. arid gallant Member propose to speak on this Amendment, as I propose to put the Question, "That those words be there inserted?"

7.31 p.m.

Captain Strickland: I want to speak on this Amendment. A statement has been made from the Ministerial Bench of the loss that would be incurred by the Govern-

ment by the acceptance of the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman opposite, but does he realise what this experiment means to the haulage trade itself? If these people are to convert their vehicles from petrol to producer-gas, taking a fleet of no vehicles it will mean something like an expenditure of £8,000 to a haulage contractor, and it is not a matter which can be passed over lightly in this way. The first thing is that it is not brought forward for the punishment of motor vehicle owners as most Government Measures like this are, but it is in order to save petrol, and if you are to save petrol—and that is the main idea—then every possible encouragement should be given to the road haulier to adopt this comparatively new method of propulsion, which he is asked to adopt for the good of the country and not for his own good. Why he should be called upon to face this vast expenditure for something which must be experimental to a great extent, I cannot understand. If the Government wish to save petrol, then they should give encouragement to the haulage industry to back up the Government. I very strongly support the Amendment.

7.33 p.m.

Sir Joseph Lamb: I am rather disappointed that no encouragement has been given to the suggestion that this should be tried for a year. Encouragement should be given to firms to make an effort in carrying out this conversion. They will not do it unless they get some encouragement. It is not only a question of the initial cost of making this first alteration. That will be very heavy. A figure has been given by one hon. Member, and although I myself do not know how much it will be, I know it will be considerable. Besides the initial cost there is also the risk which will be incurred, because the first alterations will not be entirely satisfactory, and consequently those who pioneer in this work will have to bear the cost. There will be additions and considerable alterations which will add to the cost upon the industry. We should give them more assistance.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I desire to support very strongly the Amendment which has been proposed. If at this moment the reply given is "No further consideration will be given to this matter," then the Government ought to make a generous gesture to those who are pioneering in this new industry, and the least they can do is to allow them one year's exemption.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: I do not think that over the last two or three years I have been an impediment in this House—that can be said openly—but I must say that I have witnessed something which I do not think we should tolerate much longer. Your predecessor in the Chair, Colonel Clifton Brown, actually intimated that a Member of the House should not speak. I desire to call attention to that fact.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Member may not criticise the action taken by the Chair. This is not the time at which he may raise the matter. It is definitely out of Order.

Mr. MacLaren: I have put it on record that an hon. Member was asked not to speak. The next point is this. The difference between this House and the dictatorial counsels of Chambers on the Continent, as I understand, is that this is a deliberative assembly, and it is assumed that when we come to this House we debate propositions and there is a consensus of opinion which comes to a decision upon them. That is my understanding of a democratic House of Commons. What is evident now is that the Minister in charge of the Bill has come here with instructions from the Treasury to block and menace. No amount of discussion from this side of the House is going to weigh with him or change his opinion. That also is quite clear. We are going through this hollow mockery of taking up the time of the House in what is supposed to be a Committee stage, when we can do nothing, despite all the speeches which we make, to change a policy already defined and settled upon.
Here is an Amendment coming before us now. Strange though it may seem, I object to the wording of the Amendment as it stands on the Order Paper, and I object to it on this ground. The Amendment says that for three years there shall be an exemption of taxation.
Clearly that cannot be adopted in any circumstances, because the Chancellor claims the right to tax anything he likes in any given part of the year, and you cannot abrogate the right of the Chancellor to tax what he likes. But an appeal has been made on account of the cost. Let me put this on the ground of reasoning. I want the Minister to forget what he was told by the Treasury before he came here and to listen to the argument. If he is not doing that, let us be frank and realise that this is not a House of Commons deliberating for the public good but that it is a House of set opinions where nothing can he changed by any amount of discussion in the chamber itself.
I will put this to him and I desire a reply. In converting these vehicles initial costs will be met; there is no denying that statement. You are now asked not to impose any distressing taxation on these vehicles during the process of the transition from one condition to another. That is a frank and open appeal and preposition to the Minister. Will the Minister now live up to the reputation of this House, and rise in his place and tell us why he cannot make that concession? Arguments have been made as to the necessity for cheap forms of transport. We need not go over them because they are present to his mind. Will he kindly get up in his place now and answer the appeal, not in an obstructive manner—not saying, "We have just come here to listen to you and we do not want you to go on"—but by meeting the appeal which has been put to him on rational grounds, apart from any instructions he has received elsewhere?

7.40 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Captain Wallace): If I may be allowed to intervene for a few moments, I would like with great respect to bring the Committee back to a realisation of precisely what this small Bill aims to do. It aims at carrying out part of the pledge given to this House on 8th November in a very important statement by my hon. Friend the Minister of Mines. That statement was to the effect that His Majesty's Government, wishing to encourage the use of alternative fuel, proposed to remove certain disabilities which, under various Statutes and regulations, would otherwise stand in the way. The object of this Bill


is to carry out that pledge, in so far as it is intended to remove the disabilities which would otherwise accrue to the converters of petrol vehicles to gas or producer gas in respect of the extra weight which would be involved. These people are thus put in no worse position than if they kept their vehicles on petrol. I propose, by a regulation which is shortly corning out, and which my hon. Friend has already made known, to remove all disabilities in regard to speed limits arising from the same cause.
The fact remains that people who are enterprising enough to convert their vehicles in the way that has been suggested will be left, not on equal terms with owners of petrol vehicles, but in possession of two very solid advantages. They will be using a fuel which is not rationed and which the Government have definitely expressed the intention of not rationing, and they will be using a fuel which is not taxed and which the Government have pledged themselves not to tax for five years. I appeal to the Committee to recognise that this Bill represents simply one of a series of advantages conferred upon this infant industry; and, if I may say so with great respect, I think that the Committee should welcome the Bill with open arms, instead of giving a gift horse such a prolonged examination.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: There is an obvious disposition in this Committee, which has been expressed by everybody who has spoken, that something more should be clone for those who use this fuel. I agree that the Bill does give effect to the pledge of the Secretary for Mines, but I am sure it would meet the wishes of the House if the Government would go a step further. The Amendment we are now discussing proposes that these vehicles should be free of tax for three years. The Government are faced with the position that everyone who has spoken has urged them to make some concession to the people who will pioneer this industry.

Sir J. Lamb: On a point of Order. Would it he in order to move the deletion of the word "three" from the Amendment, and the insertion of the word "one"?

The Deputy-Chairman: Manuscript Amendments may always be moved, but I do not think that this Amendment could

now be withdrawn in order that another might be moved.

Sir J. Lamb: If this does not go to a Division, would it be in order for the hon. Member to put in a manuscript Amendment?

The Deputy-Chairman: It would be in order to move an Amendment to this Amendment. That is always in order.

Mr. Batey: If the Government would agree to bring forward an Amendment on the Report stage, making this concession for a period of one year, we should he agreeable.

Captain Wallace: I still feel that the Committee do not quite appreciate the situation.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am now dealing with a point of Order.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Are we to understand that if this Amendment is withdrawn, you will accept a manuscript Amendment to substitute "one" for "three"?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is open to any hon. Member to move to omit "three" and substitute "one." I could not refuse to accept it.

Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out "three years." and to insert "one year."

7.46 p.m.

Captain Strickland: I do not think the Minister has quite appreciated the difference between the pledge that has been given and what is now required. The industry is now called upon to make a swift conversion of vehicles, or is being encouraged to make a swift conversion. If you are making new vehicles that are fitted with the necessary apparatus for producer-gas that is a much cheaper thing than to take your existing vehicles and get them converted. The Government are asking that petrol driven vehicles should be converted. As to the cost of conversion, an estimate has been made by the hon. Gentleman opposite that it would amount to £90. I am quite certain that that was for the unfitted apparatus. It has also to be fitted. I have been in touch with a firm doing this work, and I am informed that the cost of converting a vehicle from petrol


to producer-gas will be anything from £160 to £190 per vehicle. The owner of a road haulage vehicle is already suffering severely in present circumstances. He is asked to convert his vehicle now for the use of producer-gas. The motor hauling industry is quite prepared to go on with this experiment—for it is an experiment—and see what can be done to help our coal mining industry.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not want to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but the Amendment to the proposed Amendment is clearly limited. It proposes one year instead of three. That does not allow of very wide debate.

Captain Strickland: I quite agree, but it would perhaps save time for me not to speak again on the main Amendment—which I think I am entitled to do—and to emphasise now why we are asking for any concession on taxation. It is because we are asking the motor industry to pay an extra tax of £160 or £190, in order to help the country pull through. By accepting this Amendment, the Government could show that they have some sort of interest in the desperate plight to which the road haulage industry has been reduced. I hope the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to this Amendment.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Ede: We have had the advantage of hearing the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and his Minister; but the whole of the argument has been about taxation. It is true that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister of Transport has been promoted from the Treasury. As far as I know, the hon. Gentleman his Parliamentary Secretary may have hopes of following in his footsteps, through all the devious paths that he has trodden. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury sits there contentedly watching other people doing his work rather worse than he could do it himself, if that is possible. There has been no word in this Debate—except the words uttered by the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland), for which you, Sir, ruled him out of order—which have not been concerned with the taxation involved. Before the Committee can

divide on this Amendment—and I, for one, desire to support the Amendment to the Amendment—we ought to have the opportunity of hearing why the Treasury, in the light of the arguments which have been adduced, cannot accept this limited Amendment. This is a very limited Amendment. All that the Parliamentary Secretary said was that the Treasury could not agree to the sacrifice of revenue, and if that is the case, it will be far better for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary to tell us that himself and give us the reasons than to leave us with the bald statement that has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. George Griffiths: I would like to put in a word for the small man. I was surprised to see the Minister of Transport get up at that Box and support an idea that really taxes these people. He is interested in coal and so is the Secretary for Mines, and I can give them art instance of a case this week where small lorry owners near the pits have not been able to get petrol.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment before the House is to insert "one" year instead of "three" years.

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. I am coming to that. I want to help the coal industry, and if these people were not taxed the first year it would be of assistance to the coal selling scheme in South Yorkshire. I know some men who are employed at the pit where I used to work who could not have their clothes dried because the small lorry owners had not the petrol to enable them to take supplies of coal to their houses. If the Minister wants to save petrol and to increase the output of coal he should not do anything which prevents these men from having their clothes dried or else they will not be able to go to the pit to produce coal. I hope that the Government will give these small men an opportunity of using gas and steam.

Question, "That the words 'three years' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the words 'one year' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

7.55 P.m.

Mr. Viant: May not we have a reply from the Minister on the question of the period? I am sorry to have to intervene, but I want to appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter. I hope that he is not going to turn down this short period. If this House will make a gesture and give the owners of these vehicles to understand that we are sincerely desirous that they shall effect the change-over to this new system, we shall have done a great deal for the miners and a great deal towards conserving our petrol supplies. I appeal to the Minister to make a statement to the House so as to avoid anything in the nature of a division on this question.

7.56 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I am very sorry that it is not possible for me to respond to the appeal of hon. Gentlemen. I have already endeavoured to explain to the House that this Bill really represents a bit of what most people would consider to be a gift horse to this industry. I fully appreciate the attitude of hon. Gentlemen who would like a little

more, and if it were possible for me or any other Member of the Government to get up at this Box and give away £1,000,000 here and there, there is no doubt that as individuals we should like to do it, but I must say very seriously to the Committee that this proposal, if carried out, would involve a loss of revenue. It would be one of the things which would tend to unbalance the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget. It is not possible for me to give any precise figure of the loss of revenue which would accrue if this concession were given. That would clearly depend upon the number of people who took advantage of the concession, but the fact remains, as I have said before, that it is giving them very substantial advantages of unrationed and untaxed fuel, and I am afraid that beyond that the Government, in these circumstances, cannot possibly go.

Question put, "That the words 'one year' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 102; Noes, 142.

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Pym, L. R.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Radford, E. A.


Bernays, R. H.
Hepworth, J.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Blair, Sir R.
Higgs, W. F.
Raid, W. Allan (Derby)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Holdsworth, H.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Robertson, D.


Boulton, W. W.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brass, Sir W.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Jennings, R.
Salt, E. W.


Brown, Brig-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Joel, D. J. B.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Bull, B. B.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Butcher, H. W.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cary, R. A.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Scott, Lord William


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Colman, N. C. D.
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Leech, Sir J. W.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Spens, W. P.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Levy, T.
Storey, S.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Lloyd, G. W.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Sutcliffe, H.


Cruddas, Col. B.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Culverwell, C. T.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Titchfield, Marquess of


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Denville, Alfred
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Wakefield, W. W.


Dodd, J. S.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Doland, G. F.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mitchell, Col. H. (Brentf'd &amp; Chisw'k)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Eastwood, J. F.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Weston, W. G.


Ellis, Sir G.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
White, Sir R. D. (Fareham)


Emery, J. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Nail, Sir J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Etherton, Ralph H.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wise, A. R.


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Peake, O.



Gower, Sir R. V.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and Mr.


Grimston, R. V.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Munro.


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Procter, Major H. A.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words, as amended, be there inserted."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, to leave out "£10," and to insert "£5."
First of all, I think it is necessary, in as few words as possible, to deal with the argument put up by the Minister of Transport on the previous Amendment. He said that if our Amendments were agreed to, it would mean a serious reduction in revenue, but anyone who has examined these proposals knows that that is not so, and hon. Members are apt to misunderstand the proposals because of that statement. It is true that, on the face of it, if this concession were allowed, it would mean a reduction in revenue, but they must consider what it would mean in the way of reducing imports of petrol, expenditure on convoys, and on the Naval and Air units which are necessary for escorting the petrol

safely to Britain. Indirectly, therefore, it would be a good business proposition if these Amendments were accepted, especially this Amendment.
This is the position. Say you have two transport companies, one on this side of the road and one on the other, both doing the same kind of nationally important work. They have no difficulty in obtaining petrol rations. The company on this side of the road are public spirited, and their directors, who have regard to the national need, begin to wonder how they can save petrol. They decide immediately to embark on capital expenditure to enable them to swing over from petrol to gas. But the company on the other side of the road, which is more reactionary, backward, and conservative, refuses to do likewise. So we say that the public-spirited directors ought to be encouraged, and for that reason we move this Amendment. Last night, with the assistance of the librarians, I went through the Finance Acts since 1920, and I found that the


nearest comparison we can make to this Measure is to go back to the 1920 Finance Act. If Members will look at page 2 of the Bill, they will see that for the £10 proposed in this Bill, under that Act it was £10, for the £15 it was £16, and for the £20 it was £21.
That is the nearest comparison that can be made as a result of an examination of various Finance Acts. It is really impossible to compare the two, and it is not reasonable to do so. The 1920 Finance Act and the subsequent changes dealt with the taxation of steam or coal-gas propelled vehicles. Producer-gas vehicles are meant to replace petrol vehicles, and it is unreasonable to compare the proposals of this Bill with the taxes which exist on ordinary heavy gas vehicles. We have tried to be as reasonable as possible throughout the whole of the Debate, and I think that hon. Members opposite who have been present will have been struck with the reasonableness of those who have been putting forward this case. But the fact is that no concessions have been made at all; the Government have been adamant. At the same time we move our Amendments in order that we can play our part in this serious situation, no matter what anyone else is prepared to do.

8.12 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I am very sorry for the hon. Member, but I am afraid that this is an Amendment which the Government cannot accept. The Clause in the Bill carries out the purpose of the Government to put vehicles which are converted by enterprising firms on the same level of taxation as petrol vehicles. This Amendment is designed to put them in a preferential position. It means a loss of revenue, and I regret to say that in the present circumstances we cannot accept it.

Amendment negatived.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, at the end, to insert:

Division No. 6.]
AYES.
[8.15 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Daggar, G.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Adamson, W. M.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Dobbie, W.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Groves, T. E.


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Ede, J. C.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)


Baley, J.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Frankel, D.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)


Burke, W. A.
Gallacher, W.
Hardie, Agnes


Cape, T.
Gardner, B. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Cluse, W. S.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Hicks, E. G.

Provided that where all undertaking owns more than five mechanically propelled goods vehicles the reduced rates of duty chargeable under this Sub-section shall not apply to any of such vehicles unless at least 25 per cent. of the total of such vehicles owned by the undertaking are constructed or adapted to use gas.

The Amendment explains itself, and therefore there is no necessity to prolong the Debate. One or two observations, however, should be made. It may be that some large concerns carrying out work of special national importance have no difficulty in obtaining petrol. We say that these firms, in order to get the benefit of the Bill, and to be fair to the nation as a whole, should have a right to convert a certain proportion of their vehicles. This has already been insisted upon in countries like France and America, and therefore we say that if any concessions are to be made, the nation has a right to expect that a certain proportion of the vehicles should be converted.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Bernays: I am afraid that this Amendment is administratively unworkable. The hon. Member will understand why when I tell him that owners have been known to keep their vehicles in different parts of the country, and, further, that at one period of the licensing year it may be that they would want to convert less than 25 per cent. of their vehicles and afterwards might change their mind and want to convert more. That would make the collection of taxation impossible. I am sure that the hon. Member will realise that the Amendment will not work.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I only want to express in one word how disappointed we are at the action of the Government on these Amendments.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 82; Noes, 142.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Milner, Major J.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Isaacs, G. A.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Tinker, J. J.


Jackson, W. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Tomlinson, G.


Jagger, J.
Paling, W.
Viant, S. P.


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Parker, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Price, M. P.
Welsh, J. C.


John, W.
Pritt, D. N.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Ridley, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Lathan, G.
Ritson, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Lawson, J. J.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Wilmot, John


Lee, F.
Shinwell, E.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Leonard, W.
Silkin, L.
Woodburn, A.


Leslie, J. R.
Silverman, S. S.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Lunn, W.
Sloan, A.



Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Smith, E. (Stoke)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Mr. Charleton and Mr. R. J.


Maclean, N.
Sorensen, R. W.
Taylor.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)





NOES.


Acland, Sir R. T. D,
Greene, W. P. C. (Wercester)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Grimston, R. V.
Procter, Major H. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Pym, L. R.


Assheton, R.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Radford, E. A.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Hepworth, J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Higgs, W. F.
Robertson, D.


Bernays, R. H.
Holdsworth, H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Blair, Sir R.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Salt, E. W.


Boulton, W. W.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Jennings, R.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Joel, D. J. B.
Scott, Lord William


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Bull, B. B.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Butcher, H. W.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Cary, R. A.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Spens, W. P.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Lees-Jones, J.
Storey, S.


Colman, N. C. D.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith. S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Levy, T.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Lloyd, G. W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Crowder, J. F. E.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Cruddas, Col. B.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Culverwell, C. T.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Wakefield, W. W.


Davidson, Viscountess
Mander, G. le M.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsand)


Denville, Alfred
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Dodd, J. S.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Doland, G. F.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Eastwood, J. F.
Mitchell, Col. H. (Brentf'd &amp; Chisw'k)
Weston, W. G.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
White, Sir R. D. (Fareham)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Ellis, Sir G.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Emery, J. F.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wise, A. R.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Etherton, Ralph H.
Munro, P.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Nail, Sir J.



Fildes, Sir H.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr.


Fremantle. Sir F. E.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Buchan-Hepburn.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Peake, O.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Short title and commencement.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. E. SMITH:

In page 2, line 36, at the end, add:
(3) This Apt shall continue in force until the expiration of three years after such date

as His Majesty may by Order in Council declare to he the date on which the present emergency has come to an end.

The Deputy-Chairman: Mr. Ellis Smith.

Mr. E. Smith: My hon. Friends and I do not desire to move this Amendment, in view of the fact that we have had a fairly long Debate on the other Amendments and also that my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys


Davies) and other hon. Members wish to raise another matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — SHOP HOURS.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I listened with great interest to the very protracted proceedings which took place before the Motion for the Adjournmen was moved. I will guarantee that there will not be as much heat engendered in the Debate which is now to take place. I want to come at once to matters that are of considerable importance to the 2,500,000 shop assistants of the country, and I make no apology for raising the important question of shop hours, for although the issue may not be of great consequence to some people, I assure hon. Members that it is of the utmost importance to the large number of young men and especially young women employed in the distributive trades.
When we are at war, one of the first industries to be upset is the distributive trade. It employs more people, and certainly more young people, than any other three industries in the land, and employing as it does more young men than any other industry, those young men are naturally conscripted for His Majesty's Forces. Napoleon was not very far wrong when he said that we were a nation of shopkeepers, and I think Hitler could say now that our Army is more or less made up of shop assistants. There is no reserved occupation for them; they have all to join up. If they were powerfully organised and made their presence felt through trade union organisations, the Government would take much more notice of them than is being done at present. In any case, we will attempt this evening to speak on their behalf. The majority of the young persons employed in the distributive trade are young women and girls, and they are naturally more easily exploited than in almost any other occupation. Anything that we may say

to-night is intended, of course, to have a salutary effect, not only upon the Government and the Home Office in particular, but upon employers in the distributive trade throughout the country, if they care to read what we say.
When war is declared by our country, one of the first things that happens in shop life, when male assistants are called up for the Forces from behind the counter, is that women are put to fill the vacancies. This is one of the very few industries in the land where that can happen with impunity, and I want to inform the House of what actually happens. When a young assistant employed behind the counter for a wage of, say, £2 10s. a week is conscripted for the Army, a woman takes his place at a wage of 30s. a week. It is not uncommon for some unscrupulous shopkeepers actually to make a profit out of the fact that their male assistants are conscripted for His Majesty's Forces.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has come into the Chamber to hear what we have to say on this subject. We are pressing the point about the employment of women in shops where ordinarily men were employed. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will remember one important fact: it is proved beyond doubt that the health of these young women is considerably affected by their having to stand for long hours behind the counter.
We raise this issue because last October the Home Secretary, in his wisdom, issued a circular to local authorities and asked them to bring it to the notice of shopkeepers in their localities proposing a limitation of the hours during which shops should be open. He said that the closing hour should, normally, be 6 o'clock on weekdays and 7.30 o'clock on the late night. That represented a great step forward in so far as the closing of the shop doors affects the hours of labour of the shop assistant. I wish at this stage to put this point—in brackets, as it were. There is a common error in the minds of the public, though I hope not in the minds of Members of Parliament, that merely because the shop door is closed, the hours of labour of the assistant are thereby regulated. That is not so. It is a growing practice to employ assistants before the shop opens and for some time after the shop doors are closed.
In the main, however, we have to admit that the mere closing of shop doors does favourably affect the shop assistants to some extent in relation to the hours during which they have to work. Therefore, in that connection we are glad that the right hon. Gentleman issued that circular. But when he sent out that circular asking shopkeepers to close at 6 because of the black-out, the possibility of air raids, the number of accidents in the streets, and the like, he did something else which we very much regret. In effect, he said to the local authorities, "I suggest that shops should close at 6 o'clock on each ordinary night, and at 7.30 on the late night, but I give you power to extend the hours beyond these limits." The result, as the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, has not been very favourable. I think he had in mind those districts where there are munition works and where workers are employed late and want to do their shopping after they finish work. That is understandable, but what the right hon. Gentleman has done has been to play into the hands of reactionary local authorities in districts where there are no munition works. They are taking the cue, and the shops are remaining open until 7 o'clock in their areas, whereas in other districts, perhaps close by, the shops are closed at 6 o'clock. This applies particularly in Lancashire. Lancashire, to all intents and purposes, is one great town, without any real line of demarcation between one area and another, and I imagine that if inquiries were made, you would find cases of shops in one district closing at 6 o'clock and those in an adjoining district closing at 7 o'clock. It would even he possible to find shops on one side of the street closed, while shops on the other side are open. I do not know whether such a case has occurred, but it is possible under the scheme propounded by the right hon. Gentleman.
Let me state the background of this problem. Before the last war there was hardly any regulation of shop hours. People could open shops during almost any hours they liked, day or night. Some hon. Members on this side have been shop assistants themselves and have worked as long as 65 or 70 hours a week in shops. I have been in jobs of all kinds, and I have had the doubtful privilege of working 65 hours a week in a shop. I hope

I do not look any the worse for it, but some of my hon. Friends here who can speak with more experience than I have of shop life will be able to tell the House what this means. When the Great War started in 1914 the Defence of the Realm Act was passed, and we had, almost for the first time in this country, a general reduction in the hours of opening of shops and, I am pleased to say, a general reduction as a result in the number of hours worked by shop assistants. I may remark to those who believe in long hours for shopping that ever since the close of the Great War, throughout all the years, the reduced hours of opening have been maintained, and there has never been any clamour for an extension to the 1914 level. Indeed, I think shopkeepers in general have welcomed the reduction in the number of hours of opening and that is all to the good.
The problem of the closing of shops has been before the House from time to time. The present First Lord of the Admiralty, when he was Home Secretary, did a great deal to help in the improvement of the conditions of employment in shops, but there is a substantial difficulty which arises, even in connection with the present proposal of the right hon. Gentleman for 6 o'clock closing. It is astonishing in a democracy like ours how a small, reactionary, and selfish minority among shopkeepers can condemn the vast majority to remain open until late at night. This happens very often in connection with closing orders. The right hon. Gentleman possesses enormous powers. Incidentally, it may interest the House to know that he and I worked side by side for some time in the same shop—namely, the Home Office. Then he assumed the humble rôle of assistant, though I was very conscious all the time that he was my master. While, as I say, an improvement in regard to the closing of shops has been going on for some time, to the benefit of shopkeeper and shop assistant alike, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not possible for him, with the great power which he now possesses, to make the rule of closing at 6 o'clock on ordinary evenings and 7.3o on one night each week of compulsory and universal application, instead of allowing local authorities what is called elasticity in the law.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is in a difficulty in meeting this point.


We have raised this issue on several occasions in the House and in Committee when Bills have been under discussion. There is an anomaly in connection with hours and conditions of employment in shops in general. Take, for instance, the laws passed providing that no boy or girl under 16 should be employed for more than 44 hours a week and that for those between 16 and 18 there is, generally speaking, a 48-hour maximum. Those provisions relate to young persons. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman's Department could tell us—we should be very interested to know—whether those laws are really being implemented. I will tell the House why I ask that question. It is astonishing what a difference exists between shops inspection on the one hand and mines inspection, factory inspection, or schools inspection on the other. When a factory inspector is known to be visiting a village, all the employers feel that the authority of the State is behind him, but the shops inspector is employed by the local authority and probably holds two or three other jobs, such as sanitary inspector, house inspector, weights and measures inspector, and when he comes round, few people take the slightest notice of him. That is especially so if the majority of the local authorities are shopkeepers themselves. The right hon. Gentleman looked at me as if I was exaggerating, but he knows that I am not accustomed to that sort of thing.
Let me ask him, however, whether he can give us any information to-night that the law in respect of these young people has actually been enforced. It is no use asking to-night that the law should be changed, but I leave this point with the right hon. Gentleman. I have reason to tell him that shops inspection will not avail very much in enforcing the law in some localities. There are some districts where shops inspection is conducted efficiently and well—indeed, as efficiently as if it were done by the Home Office direct. But in some small local authority areas you will find that shop inspection is not unlike sanitary inspection where the chairman of the public health committee is the owner of the property which ought to be condemned.
The claim is made by some people that you should not close shops too early because customers cannot do their shopping if you close at 5 or 6 o'clock. An associa-

tion has been conducting a little census for me, and these are the results. At a clothier's, employing 21 assistants, only one customer was served between 4.45 and 6 o'clock; a boot shop with seven assistants had one customer after 5.30; a tailor with six assistants had no customers at all between 6 and 7; a West London grocer took 7½d. between 6 and 7 o'clock; and another with eight assistants took only 2s. 4d. between 5 and 6 o'clock. A census taken by the Bristol Co-operative Society on a Saturday showed that there were between 2 and 3 o'clock 1,123 customers; between 3 and 4, 1,472; between 4 and 5, 1,358; between 5 and 6, 838; between 6 and 7, 454; and between 7 and 8, 220. That shows that the public of this country is, consciously or unconsciously, shopping earlier as the years go by. That, of course, is all to the good. When I speak of the regulation of hours of labour in shops in relation to young persons, I ought to make it abundantly clear that there is no regulation whatsoever of the hours of labour of an adult man or woman in shop life. Strangely, legislation in this country has always safeguarded women and young persons in factories, but has never safeguarded women employés in shops.
I want now to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to what is happening abroad. I felt once, although I am not quite so sure now, that this country was as far advanced in industrial and kindred legislation as any other country in the world. I now find, however, that in New South Wales, Tasmania, Victoria, Manitoba, British Columbia, Quebec, New Zealand and Finland. 6 o'clock is the general closing hour. I suppose that, if the Russians had their way, all shops in Finland would he closed at 6 o'clock in the morning.

Sir Robert Tasker: Closed altogether.

Mr. Davies: In Denmark and Sweden it is 7 o'clock in the summer and 6 o'clock in the winter, and in Oslo, Norway's capital, it is 5 o'clock closing in summer and 4 o'clock in the winter. They apparently get more winter than we do here. The Co-operative movement employing 250,000 assistants, always comes well inside the regulations relating to hours issued by the Government and the local authorities. Some co-operative societies are by far the largest retail


establishments in some towns, and I have here details of the Newcastle Co-operative Society, a very large establishment, which closes nowadays at 5 o'clock. The argument which is often put forward in the House of Commons, and which we may hear to-night, although I hope not, is, "What will the poor working man do if shops are closed at 6 o'clock?" As a matter of fact, the Co-operative movement is made up in the main of working-class folk who do their shopping without grumbling when the shopping hours are made shorter.
In summing up, I would put these points to the right hon. Gentleman. Can he tell us, first of all, whether he has any idea of what are the results following the issue of his circular in October last as to closing at 6 o'clock, and how many authorities have extended the hour to 7 o'clock? Is he, and is his staff satisfied, that the Shops Acts, especially in relation to the 44 and 48-hour week for young persons, are being implemented, and can he say anything as to the operations of that very august body which was set up some time ago—the Joint Committee of Employers and Employed in the Distributive Trades? If he can say that the legislation in relation to shop hours is being properly implemented by his Department and the local authorities, this Debate will have been worth while.

Sir R. Tasker: Would the hon. Member make any exceptions in the case of hairdressers, since you cannot get a hair-cut by deputy?

Mr. Davies: I have never seen the hon. Gentleman requiring a hair-cut. I think it will be found that there is special legislation for hairdressers.

8.50 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Anderson): The hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has made a speech which I thought had two great merits. It was bright and brief. As he was speaking, I could not help thinking that he must have been keeping before him all the time the recollection of his association with the Home Office and a realisation of the high standard that must, therefore, be expected of him. Most of his speech was really concerned, although he travelled wide once or twice, with the

Order that was made in October last under the Emergency Powers Act fixing earlier closing hours for shops in Great Britain. He recognised. I was glad to note, that that Order marked a tremendous advance on anything we had attained hitherto in this country in regard to the central regulation of shop hours. In the last war no action was taken until nearly the end of 1916. Then an Order was drafted fixing 7 o'clock on three nights a week, 8 on Friday, and 9 on Saturday. There were so many representations to the House of Commons that the Order was dropped and replaced by an Order which continued during the remainder of the war fixing 8 o'clock on five nights a week and 9 o'clock on Saturday.
When we came to consider at an early stage of the present war whether we could issue a similar Order, we took account of a great many considerations. We had regard to the development of public opinion since the end of the last war and to the report of the Select Committee of this House which reported in 1931. We thought that in all the circumstances we should be justified in setting ourselves a higher standard than it was possible to attain in other circumstances; and I say deliberately "a higher standard," because a reduction of hours where it is practical for any class of worker represents an improvement in standard. We considered carefully the question of 6 o'clock. As contrasted with the normal 8 o'clock, that would have represented a sharp and sudden reduction of hours—and every change of this kind, it must be remembered, affects the habits of the people, and although in the long run the change may be held to be justified, we have to take account of the disturbing effect of a sudden change. There are, after all, in this matter interests to be considered other than the interests—important though they are—of the shop assistants. We set a standard in the Order of 6 o'clock, but we thought it right to give the local authorities a discretion. The hon. Gentleman made certain criticisms about that. We thought it right that, having regard to the circumstances of their own localities, they should be able to vary the Order to not later than 7 o'clock on five days a week and not later than 8 o'clock on the late night.
In deciding to do this, we had in mind that, from the beginning, the regulation


of shop hours has been recognised by the House of Commons and, I think, by the country as a matter appropriate for decision by local authorities. A long time ago the law gave local authorities power to issue what were called early closing orders, and in normal times they were given the right to appoint as a general hour of closing an hour not earlier than 7. It is a fact—perhaps an unfortunate fact and, it may be, a significant fact—that, broadly speaking, little use has been made of that power. The Select Committee which reported in 1931 was most sympathetic with the point of view of the shop assistants, but it did not on that point of general hours of closing feel able to go further than to say that it would be well if local authorities could he given discretion to fix an earlier hour. That was not a very strong or emphatic recommendation. We felt that we were going one better than the Select Committee, because, while we were giving a discretion in our Order to the local authorities to fix an hour which might be later than 6, we had set in the Order 6 as the standard for five days of the week and 7.30 for the late night.
Now the hon. Gentleman asks me what has been the result generally of the exercise of the discretion given to local authorities under that Order. I cannot give him precise statistics, but I can give him the broad position. It is that in populous areas in England—I am not sure about Wales—the local authorities have in general exercised their discretion to fix 7 in place of 6 and 8 in place of 7.30. A few authorities—not many—have fixed an intermediate hour of 6.30. In a number of rural areas and smaller urban areas the hours fixed by the Order have been maintained. In Scotland generally—it may be that Scotland is more enlightened in this matter—the hours of 6 and 7.30 fixed by the Order have been maintained. It is important to bear in mind the purpose of the Order, because, however worthy the object of revising the hours of shop assistants may be, it is not an object we can set out to attain directly by action under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act. The object of action under that Act, as was made clear in the House at the time, was to save fuel and to enable shop assistants to get home earlier during the black-out.
The Order was subjected to a certain amount of criticism. The hon. Gentleman said we ought not to pay too much regard to what one hears about the difficulties of the small shopkeeper or of the man or woman who has to work during the day and needs time after work to do the shopping. I agree that we ought not to pay too much attention to these considerations, for it is a fact that, whenever there has been a lowering of the hours of closing of shops, there have been violent protests which have fairly quickly died down, and people have adjusted themselves to the change. We ought not, however, to ignore that consideration entirely, especially in war-time. Many of us may be tempted sometimes to find in the war an opportunity of furthering some good cause in which we are interested. That is a temptation which we really ought to resist, because many changes in our social and economic arrangements, although they may be good in themselves, may for the time being inflict inconvenience and even hardship on other people. I do not think we should ever get the fundamental unity that we want to maintain during the war if we gave ground for anyone to suppose that the war was being used as a pretext for doing something which had no relation whatever to the purposes of the Emergency Powers Act and the effective prosecution of the war.
Therefore, I say frankly that when representations were made to the Home Office to the effect that this Order was pressing hardly in certain directions; that in certain instances the small shopkeeper was suffering; that there were parts of the country in which war-time employment was good where men and women were working up to an hour which gave them no opportunity of doing their shopping before the hours of closing fixed by the Order or fixed by the local authority, when it exercised its discretion, I thought we ought to pay some regard to those representations. We had undertaken extensive consultations before the original Order was made. We had consulted with the local authorities and with a great number of associations and trade unions in an endeavour to ascertain what the probable effects of the Order would be. In regard to people whose opinion is not organised—the small shopkeepers, for example, are not well organised, and the shopper as such is not organised at


all—we consulted various local authorities, factory inspectors, and probation officers to find out what the effect of the Order would be. None the less, when we got these criticisms we undertook further consultations, and the general result of them was to lead me to the conclusion that there might be a case for allowing a second late night.
When I came to consult the representatives of shop assistants and the trade unions concerned, I found that they were very strongly opposed to that quite modest concession, and I think I can understand perfectly well the grounds of their opposition. To them it represented the introduction of a new principle which might have repercussions and consequences after the war. I quite understand. But there it was. We had those complaints, which I could not dismiss as entirely groundless, because conditions do vary greatly from one part of the country to another, and I found it impossible to hit upon any solution which would command general acceptance. I came in the end to the conclusion that the Order, which I think represented a sensible step, had better stand, and I came to that conclusion the more readily because of something that I am about to say.
I have always had in the back of my mind the feeling that while the Order that we made in October could be justified as an Order under the Defence Act during the winter months, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to justify it as a Defence Regulation during the summer months. I took opinions on the subject, and the opinions I obtained confirmed me in my original view; and, indeed, I have been advised that it would be ultra vires of the Defence Act to maintain this Order throughout the year. During the summer the considerations of saving light, saving fuel and enabling shop assistants to get home early in the black-out would be no considerations at all. Therefore, it is the intention of the Government that there should be a return to normal hours during the summer, and in all probability we shall fix the date of that return at about Easter time. I prefer not to give the exact date, but it will be about Easter, and by that time we shall have had summer time restored to us for a quite considerable period.

Mr. George Griffiths: What is the date?

Sir J. Anderson: I am not going to say to-night what the date will be, but I shall say to-morrow. That is the position in regard to the Early Closing Order which we made last October under the Defence Regulations. It was really because of the statement I have just made that I felt it was right that I should intervene so early in the Debate. I thought subsequent speakers ought to have in their minds what was the intention of the Government. I made up my mind when the hon. Member sat down that I would do my best, great though the difficulties under which I naturally labour are, to be brief, and I am going to adhere to that intention.
Towards the end of his speech the hon. Member asked me two questions. The first was, How is the Act of 1934 being enforced? That is the Act which limited for the first time the hours of work of young persons in shops to 48 hours a week. I take it that he also wants to know how the subsequent Acts of 1936 and 1938—one dealing with Sunday employment and the other dealing with the hours of young persons under 16, fixing the hours at 44 without any overtime—are being worked. I should like to say straight away that I recognise the force of much that the hon. Member said in regard to the method of the administration of those Acts. I am not going to claim that administration by the Home Office or any other Department is as perfect as he seems to think—he is influenced by his association with the Home Office—but there are advantages in administration by a central authority from the point of view of efficiency and uniformity. On the other hand, in a democracy there are also great advantages, which we must not ignore, in administration by a body of popularly-elected representatives of the people. Although I confess that the administration of the Shops Acts is open to criticism in certain areas—I support what the hon. Member said when he maintained that in other areas the administration is excellent—in my view, where administration by a local authority is not satisfactory, the remedy is not to take the power from that local authority, but to sec to it that the local authority mends its ways, and the power to do that rests with the electors.
The position of the Home Office is that it is the central Department responsible for the administration of these


Acts, and in all the reports which have been made, and there have been many, on the subject of the Shops Acts in recent years, I think I am right in saying there has been no departure from the principle that primary administration of those Acts should rest with the local authorities, and that the general supervision should be vested in the Home Office or, in the case of Scotland, in the Scottish Office. The position is that we do watch the administration of those Acts very carefully, and where we get complaints we take special steps to find out how far they are justified and make suitably strong representations to the local authority.
Over and above all that, we do our best to see that local authorities are made aware of the provisions of the Acts which they have to administer, and their responsibilities, and I would take this opportunity to commend to the attention of hon. Members who are interested in this subject what I regard as a most admirable pamphlet, issued by the Home Office as recently as December last, on the Shops Act, 1934, as amended by the Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1938. That memorandum contains a very clear account of the provisions of those Acts, and much useful advice. That is how we are proceeding in this matter.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me how we were getting on with the joint committee, which has been engaged, not with the question of the hours of closing of shops, but with the regulation and limitation of the hours of employment of shop assistants. I think the House knows that that is a matter with which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is very closely concerned. I have been in consultation with him on the subject, and what I am going to say represents his view as well as my own. The position is that very good progress has been made in dealing with this matter by way of consultation between representatives of employers and representatives of workers. From the point of some hon. Members opposite the progress may have been disappointingly slow, but we should make a great mistake if we were to under-estimate the inherent difficulties of this problem. Conditions vary enormously from one part of the country to another and they vary enormously also between one trade and another. This is so even in the distributive trade, between

the business which is concerned with perishable goods and that which is concerned with non-perishable goods, between what I may call the West End shop and the suburban shop and between the main-street shop and the back-street shop.
Then there is the question of the interaction of hours of employment and of wages. There is the very difficult question of what we call the spread-over. You may limit the hours of employment of shop assistants, but the hours during which they are employed may be so spaced in the day that an assistant really has not the hours of leisure which he ought to have. It is a matter which it is difficult to regulate by hard-and-fast rules. It is much more easy to do it by way of agreement. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour authorises me to say that in his opinion very real progress has been made with these agreements. He says it is a great step forward that for the first time organisations of employers and workers in this great service of retail distribution, which employs over 2,000,000 workers, should have come together and discussed frankly and freely and in a spirit of friendly co-operation the methods of regulating the conditions of employment in those trades. He suggests that it is perhaps not too much to claim that voluntary agreements which have recently been made in certain sections of the trade—the National Agreement between the Multiple Shop Federation and the National Amalgamated Union of Shop Assistants, Warehousemen and Clerks, in connection with the retail boot and shoe trade, is an outstanding example—owe something to the atmosphere created by the meetings of the joint committee. The friendly relations which have been established between the two sides augur well for the future and give rise to the hope that, with patience, the difficulties will be overcome and machinery acceptable to all parties ultimately will be established. It is through this channel of discussion between the two sides of the industry rather than through direct Government regulation that we believe the progress which we all desire to see must be looked for.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that shop assistants welcomed his action in regard to the order for the 6 o'clock closing. The only fault we


had to find was that local authorities were too quick in deciding for a later hour. I have a list here, and I am glad to say that something like 60 authorities in England adhered to the 6 o'clock order and that in no case did they go beyond that. In other cases, authorities extended it by half an hour and in some cases extended it only one night.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned what happened during the last war. We know that in the last war people had to stand in queues outside the doors of the provision shops. The result was that they had to be early on the scene. One effect of that was that they quickly accommodated themselves to the changed conditions and that, after the war, in scores of towns in this country, the principal traders continued to close their shops at 6 p.m. or 6.30 p.m. That was one reason why the traders and the shop assistants' union put forward their case before the Select Committee in 1931, urging that an amendment should be made to the existing Shops Act, in order to enable local authorities, on a plebiscite of the shopkeepers themselves, to make it possible for them to close an hour earlier than 7 o'clock. Now the right hon. Gentleman says that he has been subjected to a considerable amount of criticism. He need not worry about that criticism when he knows the quarter from which it comes. The criticism is largely stirred up by a certain newspaper. I have here a cutting from that newspaper, and it says:
To-day's revolt meeting.
It was to be at Islington.
Sir John, the shops need an extra hour. Sir John Anderson, Home Secretary, is going to hear from traders in revolt to-day. They will ask him questions like these:
'Why are we denied the opportunity to do business at the time when there is the most demand for our services? Will you save us from unnecessary losses be at once approving of 8 p.m. closing, with an extension to 9 p.m. on Saturdays?'
First shots in the traders' revolt will he fired to-day from Islington, N. It is early closing day in Islington. When the shops are closed the traders will go this afternoon to the Central Library, Holloway Road, Islington.
You would imagine that the central library would be insufficient to hold the revolters. Not only the traders in revolt but customers were invited to attend, and to join in this revolt.
I am glad to be able to inform the House that that revolt was a fiasco. When the resolution was submitted to the meeting only 14 voted for it and most of the speeches at the meeting were against any extension of hours. All that they were concerned about was getting more light. One of the things they mentioned was about certain people working overtime so that they could not do their shopping. I cannot have very much sympathy for people who are working overtime when 1,300,000 workers are unemployed. This is not a time for overtime. I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has told us that he cannot continue the Order throughout the year. If that is so, surely there is a case for limitation of the hours of the assistants. The other day this House expressed its sympathy, as does the whole country, for Finland in her fight to maintain her freedom and independence. It might interest the House to know that Finland set an example to this country by limiting the hours of shop assistants to 47 per week. In this country, even at the present time, assistants over 18 years of age are working 60, 70 and 80 hours a week, and there is no legal ogligation on the employers in the slightest degree. Last February, and that is a year ago next month, I introduced a Bill proposing that adult assistants should come under the 48-hour week. The Government opposed that—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): I must remind the hon. Member that he is, I understand, dealing with proposals which involve legislation. That, of course, is out of order on the Adjournment. I wanted to give him that reminder before he proceeds too far.

Mr. Leslie: I wanted to refer to what was said on that occasion. The Government said that a joint committee had been set up, representing the employers on the one hand and the workers on the other, and that a report had been received from that committee two days before the Bill was introduced. The Government on that occasion promised sympathetic consideration. That was in February last year and so far the Government have not carried out that promise. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had been in consultation with the Minister of Labour and that the Minister of Labour believed that real progress had been made. It is four years since that committee started


the job and a year ago the Government promised that something would be done. Nothing has been done yet, so I cannot agree that very substantial progress has been made in dealing with the findings of that Committee. In September and October traders' associations all over the country met to consider closing hours. An agreement was reached by the principal traders to close at 6 o'clock. It is inconceivable that traders would have reached an agreement of that kind if it meant losing custom. It indicated clearly that the public were not shopping after the suggested closing time.
Then in October the Secretary of State for the Home Department issued an Order fixing 6 o'clock and 7.30 on the late night, and power was given to the local authorities to extend it if they considered it necessary. Unfortunately, many of the local authorities extended the hour without consulting the traders and the workers' representatives. It is good to know that in most districts many of the traders have not taken advantage of the extension of the hours permitted by the local authority, but there is always the danger that some may keep open later when they see their competitors keeping open late. The Shop Assistants' Union collected evidence as to the trade done after 6 o'clock. The evidence showed trifling amounts, ranging from 4d. to 4s., and the result of that was that multiple firms in general decided that it was not a paying proposition to keep open that extra hour.
Who are these small traders who have been clamouring for the extra hours? Many of those small traders have little knowledge of shop life. They use it as a side line to augment their earnings from other occupations, and when one hears of these parlour shops it simply means that the wife keeps the shop during the day while the husband is engaged in some other occupation and he comes home at night, reads his paper, has a smoke and serves an occasional customer. Should these people be allowed to say that shops in general shall keep open later? The genuine small trader, the man who has really served his time to the trade, welcomes early closing so that he can enjoy much desired leisure, and I think the very fact that the traders did not attend that so-called protest at Islington is proof that they realise the advantage of their weekly

half holiday which they can spend in more congenial surroundings. There is certainly no desire on the part of the shopping public to shop in the dark. We know perfectly well that people do not want to go in the dark because of the risk of casualties which are brought to our notice daily in the Press and almost nightly on the wireless.
We must also take into consideration the fact that delivery services have been reduced by vehicles being commandeered by the Government and by local authorities. Therefore, in a great many cases the customers have to carry their own purchases. Surely the welfare of the shop assistants ought to receive some consideration. Bear this in mind, that there are more shop assistants than small traders in this country and 1,500,000 should receive some consideration. There was a time when shop assistants in this country were Uitlanders, but all those over 21 years of age now have the franchise, and I hope that at the next election will know how to use it. As the war proceeds we know perfectly well that young men in the distributive trades will be called to join the Colours. What happened in the last war? The union which I represent probably suffered more than any union in this country. Young men were swept into the armed Forces of the Crown and we had to close over 100 of our branches. What did that mean? It meant that women had to be employed in larger numbers. Many of these women had to travel long distances after the shop had closed at night. There is also to be borne in mind that when the shops close the worker has not finished. There is tidying up to be done, weighing and packing goods and preparing orders for the next day. Therefore, I want to appeal to the Government to do two things. The first is to advise local authorities to consult the traders and the unions representing the workers before deciding on the hours of closing. The other point is that the Government should take steps to limit the working hours of the assistants.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Doland: When the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) began his oration he told the House that he had practical knowledge of his subject because he himself had been an assistant in a shop, and he added, quite rightly, that he thought he looked none the worse for


the job. Perhaps it would not be out of place if I said that I can say the same thing and I began my life as a shop assistant. I would add that I am none the worse for it. Perhaps I have had a little more experience than the hon. Member for Westhoughton, taking it on the whole. because I have not only worked for something like 14 and 15 hours a day as a shop assistant, but I have worked the same number of hours as a shopkeeper, and for the whole of my life I have either been a shop assistant or a shopkeeper.
This evening, even at this late hour, I felt it my duty to speak on behalf of the shopkeeper. Hon. Members on the other side, particularly the hon. Member for Westhoughton, quite rightly have the interests primarily of the shop assistants. He is undoubtedly a champion of the rights and privileges of the shop assistant. If I may say so without offence, he has made out, in my opinion, a very excellent case for those who serve and those who wait in the shops—because to-day they are waiting rather than serving. I can assure my hon. Friend, if such assurance is necessary, that if the proprietors of businesses were in a position to shorten the hours of the shop assistants and make a living at the same time, nothing would please them more than to do so. They are in a very parlous condition.
Since, and even months before, September, 1939, the retail traders—and I speak to-night particularly for this great Metropolis and Outer London—have been in a terrible position. Thousands, even in this area of Greater London, have not only lost every penny of their capital, but are hardly earning a living. Those traders who are still in business are hanging on, in many cases, by the skin of their teeth, hoping either that, by some relief for which they are asking their landlords in regard to rents and the municipalities in regard to rates, they will be able to carry on. The position of thousands of small traders to-day is so acute that they are actually earning less than what a first-class assistant would be able to earn in peace time.
When the Order-in-Council to which reference has been made was issued, on 3oth October last, the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), as leader of the London County Council,

immediately saw the hardships of the smaller and medium-sized shop-owners, and the small consumer—and all credit to him for doing so. He had the broad vision to look at this problem from all angles, and not from the one angle of the shop assistants. He then, as the hon. Member for Westhoughton recalled, varied the Order, as he had a right to do. In doing so, he said, at a meeting of the London County Council, of which I have the honour to be a member:
We have to consider and balance three factors:

(1) the understandable desire of shop assistants and some traders for still earlier closing;
(2) the livelihood of the small traders who are already experiencing a difficult time; and
(3) the convenience of the shopping public. Large numbers of single girls live long distances from their places of employment, and we have had to consider husbands whose wives have had to be evacuated.
All these factors have been fully weighed and taken into account. We have come to the conclusion that in the general public interest the extended restricted hours should be permitted.
He added that it was perhaps unfortunate that the law does not permit the hours of shop assistants to be limited as distinct from the shop hours. In my opinion, the right hon. Member for South Hackney, as the leader of the London County Council, looked at this matter from all angles and did the right thing. Since the Order-in-Council was made on 30th October many organisations affiliated to the National Chamber of Trade—a very influential body of traders—consider that the present arrangements are working very well indeed. There is, however, in my opinion and in theirs, a grievance, emanating more, I think, from the North of England than from the Metropolis, where undoubtedly local authorities have changed the late day of closing, as they have in London, from Saturday to Friday. This arrangement suits the convenience of the traders in the outer or the suburban areas of the large towns, but it has a very adverse effect on the centre of cities and all these central areas. This arrangement has caused—and perhaps the hen. Member for Westhoughton knows of this demand—a demand for two late nights up to 8 p.m. On the other hand, some local authorities, as he has already remarked, have declined to give a four days' extension to 7 p.m., and again this gives cause for complaint. It is true to


say that very small traders continue to press for the pre-war hours, and in passing I should like to say how pleased I am to-night that the hon. Member for Westhoughton has introduced this Debate, because it has elicited from the Minister Very valuable information which will very likely save the lives of many shopkeepers during the coming spring and summer months. In view of the number of traders in the category I have mentioned who have exemption under the Act of 1928, I am of opinion that under the existing conditions no general demand is being made to revert to pre-war hours, but I am very glad to have heard that the Minister is to take that fact into consideration when this black-out ceases to a certain extent during the spring and summer months.
There is, however, one more point in the opinion of retailers generally throughout the country upon which information from the responsible Minister—and the Minister to whom I refer is the Home Secretary—is urgently needed to ascertain how long the Order made on 30th October is to operate. I listened very carefully to the Minister when he was speaking, but I did not hear him tell us how long that Order would operate. It is to be hoped that the Order shall not be regarded as permanently amending the Act of 1928, but that the hours of closing shall revert to the normal hours under the Act not later than he has already suggested might take place, namely, the reintroduction of Summer-time this year. I think I remember him saying that he was not quite sure as to the exact date, but I suggest that the appropriate date would be the date of the re-introduction of Summer-time this year. These normal hours should continue at least up to the same date as when the Order came into force, namely, 30th October.
I reiterate that I am very glad indeed that the hon. Member for Westhoughton has introduced this matter. I feel sure, knowing him as I do, that he likes to look on both sides of this question, but he must, under present conditions, during war-time and the black-out, remember that there are thousands of shopkeepers who are worse off than the very men that he wishes to help. Moreover, if the suggestions were carried out as he wishes, I think it would do more harm to his own people than it would to any of the shopkeepers. I

hope the Minister will let us know as soon as possible the date on which he proposes to give us this relief and also how long the Order is to operate.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Jagger: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has left us, because I wanted to echo what has been said by previous speakers and to say that we were grateful when the Order for the 6 o'clock closing was made. It has been long over-due. But we were not so grateful when there was placed into the hands of local authorities the power to extend any hours of service. If there is one thing, however, on which I can congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, it is his complacency and especially the way in which he tells us that during the last war hours were not limited. This is forgetting entirely that there was no blackout during the last war. Then he tells us that the Select Committee which reported in 1931 did not make a very strong recommendation in favour of local authorities having power to limit hours beyond what the law itself limited them. But nine years have passed, and the British public, shopkeepers, and assistants have been educated far beyond the position in which they were in 1931. This step, with its possibility of a 7 o'clock closing, is a backward step, because we have established overwhelmingly throughout the country a general closing hour of 6 o'clock, with one late night per week, and here it is being put within the power of local authorities, whose members are mainly of the shopkeeping classes, to lay down that 7 o'clock is to be the hour.
The happiest feature about it is that, having educated the British public, shopkeepers, and assistants to the possibility and advantage of earlier closing, they are not going back because even the London County Council has extended the hour to 7. I must confess that any desire that I have had to feel grateful to the Home Secretary disappeared entirely when he informed us that even this Order is to come to an end at Easter or thereabouts. I never remember a Debate on an Adjournment, arranged with the idea of trying to persuade a Minister to improve a position, in which the position was definitely made worse than anybody anticipated it was going to be. The Minister is quite sure that though local inspection is not as good as Home Office


inspection, it is fairly satisfactory. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has said that he knows some towns and cities where inspection is fairly well carried out. He has knowledge that I have not, but I have experience that he has not, and I do not know a single place in the whole of Great Britain where any real attempt is made to carry out the provisions of the Shops Acts. There is not a single municipality which has a staff that could do the necessary inspection. It is high time that legislation was introduced which would remove from local authorities, dominated as they are by the shopkeeping class, the power of inspection under the various Shops Acts.
We come to the last Act—the 44-hours Act. The right hon. Gentleman very complacently says that he thinks it is going on all right. Let me put it straight to him: Has there been a single prosecution for an infringement since the Act was passed? If it needs the staff that it does to keep industrial employers observing Acts of Parliament, surely, if there was decent inspection under the Shops Acts, there would have been at least one solitary prosecution under the new Act before now. If there has been one, I have never heard of it, and the Press has been discreetly silent about it. Whenever new legislation can be entered upon I hope that what is, after all, the biggest blot on shops legislation, namely, that there is no enforcement, will be removed and that enforcement will be placed in the hands of the central authority. I am quite unable to see the logic of the argument that when an Act of Parliament is passed, or when an Order under an Act of Parliament is issued, the responsibility should be put on other bodies, as has been done in the case of this Order under the Defence of the Realm Act for the earlier closing during the black-out hours. It is an entirely unfair responsibility to put upon local authorities. They are given no instruction as to how they are to get the opinions of the people concerned, the shopkeepers, the shop assistants, or the consumers. They never do get the opinion of the consumers, in many cases they never get the opinion of the shopkeepers, and in even more cases they never get the opinion of the shop assistants. That Order should have been

a universal Order applicable throughout the country.
If it is said that there are places where there is a necessity, I would cite Woolwich with its arsenal works as a likely place: yet the Woolwich Arsenal Co-operative Society finds no difficulty whatever in catering for the enormous working-class population there with the 6 o'clock. It has already been pointed out that there is no limitation of the hours which adult shop assistants may work. Shops in the provinces open generally at 8 o'clock, and a little later in London. Even with the 6 o'clock you have a 10-hour clay four days a week, including meal time, a five-hour day on the half-holiday and an 11-hour day on the sixth day. Add together these hours, and deduct from five of the days the hour and a half for meals, and you get some idea of what are the normal working hours of shop assistants. Add to that the enormous amount of unpaid overtime which, in the nature of the shop assistant's occupation, must be worked by him, and you get some, idea of why we are always insisting that there should be some limitation of the number of hours that shop assistants work.
We have had from the last speaker a very pitiful and, I think, exaggerated picture of the plight of the retail shopkeeper, but I wish somebody would give a little thought to the position in which the shop assistant is being placed during the time through which we are now passing. The whole scheme of rationing, the carrying-out of which is placed upon the shop assistants, has been carried through without the shop assistants being consulted. To the shop assistant it represents additional work. Rationing alone will add hours and hours to the unpaid overtime of practically every shop assistant in this country who is not powerfully enough organised in his trade union to be able to get payment for overtime.
There is also the difficulty to which the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) referred of the speed at which the young men in the distributive trade are being called into the Army, and the way in which they are being replaced by females of exceedingly tender years. One gets from that some idea of the additional responsibility that is placed on the shoulders of the older shop assistants who remain. There is the further difficulty of these females of tender years having to go


long distances when shops are closed during the black-out period. I do not agree with the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman put upon his powers with regard to the continuing of this Act. I am not a lawyer, but I have seen nothing in the Defence of the Realm Act which empowers a Minister to do something for four months in the year and says that he cannot do it for the other eight months. I hope that before the right hon. Gentleman comes finally to the conclusion that he has no power to continue this Order, unsatisfactory as it is, throughout the whole year, he will at least take advantage of the legal advice of the Law Officers of the Crown.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT FACTORIES (NORTH-EAST COAST).

9.53 P.m.

Miss Ward: I want first of all to apologise to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department for talking about something which has no relation to his Department. I am not going to continue the discussion which was opened by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). I find myself in an extremely awkward position, because under war-time Parliamentary procedure it is almost impossible for a supporter of His Majesty's Government on the Government side of the House to raise any issue except on the Adjournment, and, of course, one feels that then one ought not to detain the House, its officials and staff longer than is necessary. As day after day, when Parliament meets, the two Oppositions have the right to raise what issues they like, supporters of His Majesty's Government always find themselves forced into the position of discussing the matters which are raised by the Opposition. To-night, I want to speak on a subject which has not been raised by the Opposition, and therefore, I have to take advantage of the Adjournment Debate to talk about something which is of vital interest to my part of the country, but has no relation to the departmental work of the Minister who is to reply, and as far as I know, there will be no reply on the matter I am about to raise. But I am not in the least deterred by that.
I want immediately to raise a matter which I have just discovered through making some inquiries on the North-East coast. I find that plans are being made all over the country for an increase in

the war effort as far as industrial production is concerned. I find that an official of the Ministry of Supply has visited the North-East coast and discussed sites available for Government factories. I have also ascertained that the North-East coast has been ruled out and that we are not to benefit in the future, at any rate on the first list, by the setting up of any Government factory for war production purposes. I understand also that this is due to what the Defence Ministers call our vulnerability. It is obvious that I am in no position to comment on the decision of the Service Departments but I must point out, in regard to the question of vulnerability, that it was decided that while Newcastle and Gateshead were to be scheduled as evacuable areas, the rest of Tyneside was scheduled as a neutral area.

Mr. Speaker: I must point out to the hon. Member that while I have no power to control the subjects of Debate on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House and while Members are entitled to raise any questions which they like on that Motion, it is, at the same time, usual and customary to give some notice to the appropriate Department of questions that are to be raised so that a Minister may be present to answer. It would seem that the hon. Lady will not receive any answer to the question which she is now raising.

Miss Ward: I have given notice of my intention to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment. I gave notice to the Minister of Labour and I had a note from him to say that the question of State factories on the North-East coast did not come within his responsibility and that my letter had been handed on to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Supply. The Parliamentary Secretary told me that he would be unable to be present to-night. I have already explained the unfortunate position in which supporters of the Government find themselves in this connection and I am quite prepared to receive no reply tonight. I informed the Ministry of Labour that I did not expect a reply to-night but this is a matter of such urgency in my own part of the world that I have to take any opportunity I can get of raising it. Last night we had a Debate on the black-out and on matters relating to the Ministry of Transport which I felt were of great interest to the House. I could not therefore raise this question last night.


To-morrow, there is to be a Debate on agriculture in which a large number of Members will wish to speak and I could not give notice to raise the matter on the adjournment following the Debate which is to be initiated by the Opposition Liberals. I have no idea of what the business of the House will be next week, but I do submit that the question of establishing factories for war production is of great importance. These plans are being made now; contracts for the leasing of land are being entered into, and unless the matter is raised now as one of urgency we shall be up against the proposition that decisions have already been made.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot judge of the importance of these particular questions at this particular moment. All I have to do is to conduct the Debates of the House and I can only point out to the hon. Member that it is contrary to the custom and practice of the House that there should be no reply to questions raised on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Miss Ward: I appreciate that I am acting contrary to custom and I regret it but I feel that this is a matter of great importance. I tried to raise it at Question Time and I have made representations to the Chief Whip to ask whether an opportunity will be given to supporters of the Government to raise questions occasionally.

Mr. Speaker: All these matters have nothing to do with me, as the hon. Lady will appreciate.

Miss Ward: I sincerely apologise to you, Sir, because I gather from your remarks that you do not favour the line of action which I am taking. That I very much regret, but at the same time I do consider that this is a matter of importance to my part of the world, and I see no other way of bringing it to the attention of the House, although I very much regret that I should act in any way contrary to your advice. I feel, however, on this occasion that I must try to sustain the position of the North-East Coast, and that to me is all-important. So long as I am not acting contrary to the rules of the House and although you say it is against the custom, I am afraid I must continue my speech and that I must take advan-

tage of the opportunity given to me. I have made every effort to try and raise this question affecting the North-East Coast. It does not only affect my constituency but the future of the whole of the North-East Coast. I feel it is an all-important question because I am sent to Parliament to represent that point of view and unless I am transgressing the rules of the House I must continue. I make every apology to my hon. Friend, but I am a spokesman of my part of the world and feel this matter very strongly. With very great apologies to him I must maintain my position.
I was just pointing out that when it came to the consideration of the scheduling of those areas which were neutral and those areas which were evacuable it was decided that Tyneside, with the exception of Newcastle and Gateshead, should be scheduled as neutral areas, whereas Birmingham, Glasgow and Liverpool are all scheduled as evacuable areas and are sharing in the war production at the present time. The North-East Coast is, as far as I understand it, completely ignored. The anomaly of the position is that if it is decided that there shall be an increase in the shipbuilding production one of the very few yards sterilised under National Shipbuilding Securities, Limited, which could be put into quick shipbuilding production again is on Tyneside. If the Government, therefore, decide that they want to increase shipbuilding production in this country, presumably the question of vulnerability will go by the board. Again so far as the production of one or two other things are concerned, then the Government will decide that it shall he done on the North-East Coast, but for the main part we are to be entirely and absolutely ignored.
I say to the members of His Majesty's Government that I want to know whether it is a Cabinet decision to repudiate all the work that has been done in connection with the Special Areas. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour tells me that he has no direct responsibility for the siting of factories. I am also told that the Special Commissioner who did very valuable work on the North-East Coast has now been made a regional representative for the Ministry of Information, and, therefore, we have had nobody to fight our case. I very much want to know whether it is a Cabinet


decision that all the programme for the increase of war production and the siting of factories is to be decided by the Defence Ministers without any reference to other considerations.
We have a considerable amount of unemployment owing to short-time working in the pits, but in the shipbuilding and some of the skilled trades all our workmen are employed. Beyond the level of those people who are normally on standard benefit, there is a large proportion of people who are still on the Unemployment Assistance Board's list. Unemployment among women is on the up-grade. We on the North-East coast would resent pressure being put on us to transfer our industrial population to other parts of the country. It is true that we are in a vulnerable area, but it is also true that our men have to go out to keep the seas free in order to let our ships in and to supply raw material and food at our ports to feed the rest of the country. It is equally true that the spirit of determination of our people to prosecute the war to a satisfactory conclusion is undaunted and unbroken. If, however, the Government are going to say to us in war time that we are to have no consideration whatever, that we must bear our war burdens along with the rest of the country, but that, in addition, we must bear the burden of carrying our unemployed without any relief and that we are to be completely ignored, the Government are asking a great deal. They are asking a great deal, particularly in view of the fact that we do not feel that consideration is being given to the problem of reconstruction after the war, when the North-East coast will be hit as it was after the last war. We have been fighting for years ever since to try and get employment re-established there. The Government have been very oncoming in asking private employers to start industries on the North-East coast, brat when they have an opportunity to do it themselves we are ignored.
We are in this war and we shall stand by our determination to win until victory is assured. We are fighting not for our generation, but for the generations to come, that they shall have peace and a measure of prosperity. I say "a measure of prosperity" because everyone recognises that it will be many years before prosperity can return to this country. All parts of the country, however, will have

to share in the victory. As I see it if the Government are making no plans for reconstruction after the war and are going to say to the North-East coast, "You are not going to share in war time employment," our future is a very black one. I, a supporter of the Government as I am, shall fight until I establish the principle that the Defence Departments, in their establishment of factories for war production, are instructed by the Cabinet to bear in mind our unemployment problem and our reconstruction problems after the war.
If I can have a satisfactory answer on that point I shall be content with my intervention to-night. If I cannot get any satisfaction I must take what other steps I can. I recognise that I am only one voice and am really of no account in the scheme of things, but, as far as I can, I shall fight to establish the principle that we have as much right to consideration as any one else. I hope, therefore, that, though it has been outside the custom, my intervention in the Debate tonight may bear fruit, and that the future will hold out some prospect to that part of the world which I have the honour to represent in this House.

Orders of the Day — SHOP HOURS.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: I have no desire to prevent the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) from showing that she does not belong to the majority who can be described as "Yes-men" supporters of the Government, but I must say that I hope she will take, perhaps, a better opportunity, when next week the Opposition raises a general Debate on the proper co-ordination of war effort, of showing that her constituency is adequately represented. What I am anxious about is that a Debate which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) should not be allowed to "peter out" without an adequate answer to the powerful case which has been submitted by my hon. Friends the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) and the Member for the Clayton Division of Manchester (Mr. Jagger). They represent two quite distinct trade unions for distributive workers, covering between them the great majority of the organised retail distributive workers, and in that capacity have to speak also for the still larger number of distributive workers who, in a trade which is comparatively badly


organised, in the mass need a good deal to be said and done for them if they are to get justice in regard to their working conditions and proper opportunities for social enjoyment.
There is an important issue to be faced to-night by reason of the statement made by the Home Secretary. An Order which was made last October limited the hours during which shops can remain open, especially during war-time. I want to know what is the answer of the Home Office to the pertinent cases which have been put to my hon. Friends as to the effective working of that Order by very large and important bodies of workers in those organisations which already give trade-union conditions. It is useless to put forward the kind of scattered arguments that we have heard to-night about the position of retail traders when we find that organisations employing tens of thousands of distributive workers, and catering for all domestic needs have yet been able, without hardship, to provide supplies for their members and customers while not merely observing what is the Order of the Home Secretary but giving what ought to be the general decent conditions in the trade. In all the great industrial centres where there is strong working-class opinion we have found over and over again that people are always willing to adjust their lives, as far as they can, to the introduction of social reforms which benefit other classes of workers. Such reforms have been very long delayed. They have called for 50 years of agitation on the part of shop assistants.
According to the reports that I have about the announcement made to-night by the Home Secretary, I feel strongly that a retrograde step is being taken. I cordially agree with the hon. Member for the Clayton Division that what is needed is not a reactionary step such as the Home Secretary has announced but an actual improvement in the machinery directly controlled by the Home Office for seeing that the effective hours are observed under the Statute, as regards both the general conditions of shop assistants and the hours for juveniles and young persons. I am appalled that, in the present circumstances, we should have had such an announcement. I may say to my hon. Friends who have spoken for the distributive trade unions that we

could hardly have expected very much better, having regard to the position in which the Government have allowed the so-called negotiations on the general conditions of the shop assistants to fall, after three and a half years of conferences. We cannot hold the present Home Secretary responsible for that, because he has not been connected with them for so long.
Hundreds of thousands of shop assistants will, to-morrow morning, learn with concern that even the very small improvements in their conditions which have accrued as a result of these Orders are to be taken arbitrarily away in the course of the next few weeks, in a statement in which, as reported to me, the Home Secretary said that he had no power to intervene. That is the most amazing statement of all. Last September we sat here, in order to assist in whatever was proper measures to secure the prosecution of the war to a successful issue. Day after day we passed, not one or two Acts, but tens of Acts, in order to secure the objective of the Government. Here we are now, with an actual Order operating under the emergency powers then taken. There is not the slightest reason why the Home Secretary should not continue this Order. He should, in my view, limit the leniency of operation of the present powers of local authorities which impinge on the proper conditions which ought to be maintained, not only for shop assistants generally, but especially for the army of women assistants who have now to be trained to take the place of men during the war. I should very much regret it if this section of the Debate on the Adjournment should close without some reply from the Government Front Bench on the facts which have been submitted by my hon. Friends.

10.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I hope the House will acquit me of any discourtesy in not having risen at an earlier stage to reply on the Debate, but it would have been very unusual to have two speeches from the Government Front Bench on a Motion for the Adjournment within the space of the short time of two hours. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken would not, I am sure, charge me with any discourtesy, seeing that he himself was not in the House when the Home Secretary made his very full statement earlier on. Hon. Gentle-


men opposite were well satisfied with that statement; the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who initiated the Debate, has, in fact, gone home. [HON. MEMBERS: No."] It is clear that the hon. Gentleman who initiated the Debate is evidently well satisfied with the very ample statement made by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Alexander: I hope the Under-Secretary of State is not going to set up aunt sallies in order to knock them down again. We have not charged him with discourtesy, and my hon. Friends the Members for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) and Clayton (Mr. Jagger) are still here to listen to the Under-Secretary's answer.

Mr. Peake: In that case it is not reasonable for the right hon. Gentleman to expect me to repeat for his benefit the whole statement—the very ample statement—made earlier by the Home Secretary from this Box. I will, however, deal with the new points which have been made. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Clayton (Mr. Jagger) specifically asked whether any prosecutions had taken place under the Employment of Young Persons Act, 1938, in regard to the 44-hour week for young persons under 16. My information on that point is that we have not as yet been informed of any prosecution under that Act.

Mr. Jagger: It shows you what the inspector is like.

Mr. Peake: The hon. Gentleman will, however, be aware that under Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of that Act the 44-hour week came into operation only on 1st January, 1940, and therefore only three weeks have elapsed since that part of the enactment has been in force.

Mr. Jagger: My question was general.

Mr. Peake: The question was, in fact, specific, and my answer is that as the 44 hour week has been in operation only three weeks it is as yet too early, I think, for any prosecutions to have taken place.

Mr. Jagger: Can you enlighten me as to whether you prosecuted under the 1938 Act?

Mr. Peake: I will certainly obtain whatever information is available on that point. As regards the main point which has been repeated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough

(Mr. Alexander), his principal complaint was that the Home Secretary had announced that at some date before Easter he was going to revoke the Defence of the Realm Regulation No. 60A which came into operation on the 30th October, and the closing hours for shops would revert to those in operation before the Defence Regulation was made. The reason given for that by my right hon. Friend was that the Defence Regulation was made under the Emergency Powers Act which was passed on the outbreak of war and every Regulation and Order made under that Act had to be made with the more effective prosecution of the war as its object. My right hon. Friend told the House that he had been advised —and for the information of the hon. Member for Clayton, I may say that he has been advised by the Law Officers of the Crown on this point—that if he were to continue the operation of this early closing Order for shops after the time when it is made necessary by the blackout, then that Defence Regulation might well be open to challenge in the Courts.
I think it is perfectly clear that the whole reason for this early closing Order, Defence Regulation No. 60A was the introduction of the black-out on the outbreak of war. In fact, the original demand for this Regulation came from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough himself, for it was he who on the 7th September last year put a Question to the Home Secretary in these terms: He asked the Minister for Home Security
whether he will take into immediate consideration the issue of an order with regard to the hours of shop closing, so as to ensure unanimity of practice in relation to blackout precautions and to provide the maximum of safety for employés and customers?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th September, 1939; col. 577, Vol. 351]
It was quite clear that it was in the right hon. Gentleman's mind, as it has been in the minds of other hon. Members who have spoken this evening, that the black-out was the origin of the early closing Order for shops which is in operation at present. My right hon. Friend is perfectly certain that it would be open to challenge in the courts if he were to continue the operation of this Order. Therefore, on that and other grounds, he has come to the conclusion that the right course to take is to revoke the Order when the hours of daylight permit shop


assistants to get to their homes during daylight.
The other principal point raised was as to the regulation of the hours of shop assistants. I think it is clear that that is a subject which is near to the hearts of a great many hon. Members, but it is not a subject which can be properly discussed on the Adjournment, for it would necessitate new legislation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough spoke of the necessity of providing decent conditions for trade union workers. The Government are ready at all times to assist in that object, but they cannot make use of a Regulation passed in connection with the more effective prosecution of the war for bringing about new social reforms.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL CAMPS.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I desire to raise a matter of which I have given notice to the Minister of Health, concerning the national camps which are now being dotted about the country. I took a great deal of interest in this Measure when it was being passed through the House earlier in the year, and there is a good deal of public interest in what is going on and what use is to be made of these camps. There was a leading article in the "Times" on the subject only a day or two ago. In the public interest, I feel, it would be desirable for the Minister to make some definite statement on the position. Originally it was intended to make a grant of £1,200,000 for the erection of 5o camps. Owing to the cost involved, it has now been found possible to start the erection of only 31 camps. This raises the point—to which I hope the Minister will pay careful attention—as to whether later on, when the National Camps Corporation have finished their work, it would be right to make a further grant to enable them to carry on with this admirable work which they have so effectively done up to now. It is not a matter about which I expect a decision to-night, but I am sure it ought to receive the attention of the Government.
At present, according to a reply which I received a day or two ago, there are 12 camps actually completed, and a further five will be completed at the end of this month. We have then practically avail-

able at the moment 19 camps, and the rest of them, making up the 31, are well on the way towards completion. The startling thing is that, in spite of the fact that we have all these camps available and in prospect, only two are occupied at the present time. One of them is very properly occupied by physically defective children. The other, I was startled to learn, is occupied by the Bank of England. When I first heard that I really began to wonder whether things had come to such a pass that we had Mr. Montagu Norman and Lord Stamp in double-decker beds in some camp in the middle of a wood in some remote part of England. I am glad to learn that things are not as serious as that, and that it is some of the female staff of the Bank who are there ensconced. I am also glad to learn that they have been given notice and they are going. They ought not to have been sent to the camp at all. It was not intended for such a purpose and I venture to think that the Minister of Health was guilty of an error of judgment. If he was not, why does not he allow them to stay there? They are not suitable occupants. It was never intended that civil servants should be sent there, and I am glad to learn that they will not be there much longer.
The Press has been asking, and we naturally ask, why these camps are being built? Nine of them have been ready since nth December. It will not do to say, "We have only just had them in the last few weeks or days." Nine of them were available on nth December. I had an opportunity during the Recess of inspecting some of the camps, and I would like to take this opportunity of most heartily congratulating the National Camps Corporation upon the manner in which they have carried out the great task which has been given to them. They have shown initiative, imagination and energy, and I think they may be proud of the work that they have done. The sites seem to have been well chosen and well laid out, and the buildings in cedar are agreeable to look at. They are tiled with cedar tiles, and I understand that a certain number of Canadians have been brought over here from the Far West in order to do the tiling, which is not readily understood in this country, and to instruct people in this country how this work may be carried out.
These camps are centrally heated. It is a magnificent system of central heating which would be greatly appreciated by many people in this country in the present weather. They are suitable for occupation during the winter months, and even during the coldest winter months. There is electric light. There are four class-rooms for teaching purposes, and there is, in addition, a large dining-hall capable of seating 400 persons, which can also be used for the purpose of teaching, f necessary. There are six dormitories capable of taking, in double-decker beds, 58 children. The kitchens are admirably equipped with the latest machinery. I remember seeing there a machine which was capable of cutting and buttering go pieces of bread per minute without any human activity at all. You can vary the thickness of the bread or butter by the manipulation of the machine. Twenty-live managers have been appointed at a salary of £5 a week each, and with the chefs, who receive £4 a week each, and administrative staff, they are the only persons in the camps. There is this substantial weekly expense incurred for the carefully selected staff but there are no children. It is really a shocking piece of waste which the Government will have to defend and justify in some way. It will not be possible to say that these are new problems suddenly come upon us. They should have been foreseen months ago. Yet nothing has been done.
Recently, however, there has been some sign of life in a Government Department. The Board of Education issued a circular to local authorities throughout the country on 17th January stating the conditions under which these camps would be available for children. Originally, of course, these camps were intended for use by schools in peace time, during the warmer months of the year. It was intended that in war-time they should be used for evacuation purposes but not necessarily for children. When we talked about the Bill the idea was that they should be used for families and not only children. I notice in the circular just sent out by the Board that it is laid down that not less than 150 children shall be sent to any one school. That is the maximum and it seems a strange figure. It is seriously suggested that permission might be given in certain circumstances for 150 children to use the camp when there is room for 350. Obviously there is a large

margin of waste of unoccupied premises and I would like to know what possible justification there is for not endeavouring to use these premises to the full. I think the figure of 150 ought to be substantially raised.
There is, no doubt, difficulty about teachers. I am sure there is no more patriotic body in the country than teachers who are accustomed in the ordinary way to looking after children during teaching hours. It has not always been necessary for them to do a great deal beyond that. But in these camps it is clear that some teachers will be on duty 24 hours a day for seven days a week because they have to be on the spot and will be responsible for children day and night. The remedy obviously suggests itself to anyone—there should be a sufficient number of teachers sent to the camps so that reliefs can be supplied as may be required. That would appear to be the remedy for the very real difficulty that may present itself to teachers. They are being supplied with free board and lodging during the time of their residence.
That is the case I want to present to the House and to ask the Minister to explain how soon and by what methods occupation is going to be carried out. A great opportunity is presenting itself to the country in this matter. You have these splendid camps—empty. You have evacuated children scattered about in unsatisfactory conditions in some cases as far as education is concerned—and you have a broken promise. A promise was made that the education of these children should be continued. We know the difficulties, but that promise has been broken. Let us fill the camps and at the same time fulfil the promise that the education of these children should be continued and thus fortify them for the great battle which lies in front of them.

10.42 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I welcome the opportunity which the hon. Member has given the House for reviewing the position with regard to camps, and for dealing with the establishment, in consequence of the Camps Act, of 15 or 20 camps, educational camps, each of which will accommodate as many boarding pupils as some of the great public schools in England. I think 250 is the number in Mill Hill School, a not incon-


siderable school in the estimation of many people and certainly in the opinion of its pupils. We must regard the Camps Act as providing an opportunity not of shovelling into a series of boxes 200 or 300 children but an opportunity of founding a number of educational institutions whereby we may get the greatest possible advantage from an admitted disadvantage.
The experiment of school-camps was not delayed at the outbreak of war as the hon. Member suggested. At the outbreak of war a number of existing camps —not erected under the Camps Act—were filled with children from London, Newcastle, Gateshead and other places. In the opening days of the war over 5,000 children left for these camps and were accommodated for many weeks. Indeed, 3,500 children are still in the camps. From this we have learned many valuable lessons. It was the desire to take advantage of these lessons which explains the fact that some of the camps constructed by the National Camps Corporation are temporarily unoccupied—not through wastefulness or lethargy as suggested by the hon. Member.
Those who, like the Parliamentary Secretary and myself, have had an opportunity of reviewing the experience we have had from the transfer from day school conditions to boarding school conditions will realise that a perfectly different set of considerations apply. The teachers had as much to learn as the scholars on the novel transformation from day school conditions to boarding school conditions. Hon. Members who have had experience of boarding schools will know what a difference a good or bad housemaster may make to a house in a great public school, and how a lad's life in a bad boarding school may become a very unhappy experience indeed.
We had, of course, to continue to deal with those 5,000 children who were moved into camps. Some of the camps were well built and some of them were not so well built, and before we decided to carry them on as all-weather camps, extensive alterations had to be made, heating had to be installed, and so on. Some of them could not be used for children in all-weather conditions. At the outbreak of the war, 30 camps were occupied, and 24 are still

occupied. The number of children in the camps has been brought down from 5,000, for which number the camps were suitable in the weather of September, to 3,500 to-day. The other children have had to be rehoused in big houses, hostels, residential schools suitable for winter occupation, and in one or two instances, in additional camps.
I come now to the actual experience of the Camps Corporation. I welcomed the tribute which the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr.:Mander) paid to their work. In particular I should like to commend the work of Lord Portal and Sir Edward Howarth, who have toiled unceasingly to complete the camps in accordance with the schedule and to take advantage of all possible experience in every weather, and who may now look upon their work with pride. Now that they have handed over to us these beautiful buildings, it is up to us to see that the best possible use is made of them. As the House will remember, we hoped originally that some 50 camps would be provided out of the £1,200,000 voted by Parliament, but I found it necessary to give a warning when the contracts were being placed that the cost would be greater than we had anticipated and that therefore the number would be somewhat smaller. This was to some extent due to the rise in prices which took place during the year, but to a greater extent to further improvements which had to be introduced as the camps passed from plans to actual buildings. In fact, some of the extra cost was due to requirements or suggestions made by this House itself.
The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton asked whether, when the programme is completed, a further programme will be undertaken. We shall certainly consider that. We shall need to consider it with reference to finance and, still more, to the materials available; but certainly, we do not close our mind to the provision of further camp buildings if and when we find that these are suitable. Of our present construction programme, I think we can say that the speed was good and that we made admirable progress up to the time of the crisis in the autumn, although we were slowed up thereafter. For England and Wales the figures are as given by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton. There are five camps in Scotland,


under the jurisdiction of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. All five are in an advanced stage of construction. My right hon. Friend hopes that the first will be ready to be occupied by the end of February, and three more in April. All the testimony is that in both Scotland and England the camps are very pleasant to look upon from the aesthetic point of view, and well suited to the purpose for which they were intended. It is necessary to add, however, that the all-weather, permanent, use of the camps has involved certain alterations, and for use as schools classroom accommodation has had to be added—the Camps Corporation have had to add a classroom block. That has been done in all but one of the camps that are now ready, and is being done as part of the original construction in those approaching completion. Let me deal in passing with the remarks made by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton which require an explanation as to why one of these camps has been occupied by adults instead of children.

Mr. Mander: By the Bank of England.

Mr. Elliot: Not the Bank of England—the hon. Member withdrew that remark afterwards and said that the camp in question was occupied by girl clerks. The hon. Member will remember that when we were examining the problem of evacuation before the war, we were all agreed that it was necessary to consider the use of camps as shelters for adult evacuees and not solely for children. Indeed, in some parts of the House it was impressed on us as the solution of the whole evacuation difficulty. We had to examine the suitability of the camps not merely for the housing of children but for the possible housing of adults as well, and I do not deplore or apologise for the experirnent made in housing adults.

Mr. Mander: Why are they leaving now?

Mr. Elliot: Because the experiment has been carried out. What is more, the hon. Member will be pleased to hear—or perhaps he may deplore—that these tenants have carried out many improvements in the property while it has been in their possession. They are leaving at an early date and receiving no compensation whatever for the great improvements which they have carried out. These improvements will inure to the landlord,

but as in this case the landlord is a public body no doubt the hon. Member will be glad to hear that. As I say, this experiment, carried out not at our expense, has resulted in an enhancement of the value of the property. It was an experiment vitally necessary for the examination of the possibilities of evacuation, and I make no apology to the House for it. I am sure it is an experiment which the House would have desired.
The main use of the camps in war-time, we have now decided, is for the children, and we think the best thing is to make a large proportion of them available for schools which had been evacuated and were finding it difficult to carry on in temporary accommodation in the country. Our experience of other camps and our discussions with medical and school authorities led to the conclusion that camps were not suitable for very young children, who are less able to adapt themselves to camp life, and are more prone to epidemic diseases. We have therefore turned our attention to schools for pupils of it years and upwards, either secondary, or senior, or selective central schools. As the House will see, in the choice of tenants for these buildings it was very necessary that the school should be fitted to the camp as the key is fitted to the lock—a camp should not be used merely as a receptacle into which to shovel 300 or 400 children. As soon as a camp was near enough to completion it was inspected by the education authorities. At the beginning of November we proceeded, through the inspectors of the Board of Education in the reception areas, to get into touch with the schools which seemed likely to be suitable, and with their local education authorities. Hon. Members may say "This ought to have been foreseen and all this ought to have been done during the previous months." But a prospective tenant of a building learns a lot more when he sees the building erected than he can gather from merely seeing prints or plans. The school authorities went to see the premises to which it was suggested that the school should be transferred. They were not willing to buy a pig in a poke and nobody suggests they should be asked to do so. Some improvements had to be made in the schools as a result of this practical inspection by the practical people.
Again, I make no apology for having given the school authorities an opportunity of looking over the premises which were to be occupied, perhaps not for months but for years, by children for whose lives and health they—not I or any Member of this House—were responsible. These were trustees and guardians, and they looked over the premises into which they were to put the young people entrusted to their care. I do not blame them for having carefully examined the premises. We aimed at finding schools of a minimum number of 250 boys or girls which, in the first place, were not satisfactorily housed in the reception areas and which were most likely to make a success of novel conditions—and that is almost more important than any other criterion. There were not many schools satisfying all these conditions, and very few had as many as 250 pupils left in the reception areas. We did not, and we do not, think that assembling them in bits and pieces will be satisfactory. The esprit de corps is, in the working-class school, felt just as keenly as in some of the older foundations.
I have been very struck by the discussion which we had only last Monday with the various authorities concerned with evacuation. An hon. Member representing an education authority spoke very strongly of the desirability of recognising that the tradition of a school was a thing which was not confined to an upper-class school alone. When it is said that there should be some authority to compel the filling up of these camps to the exact number, I say that that is not the spirit in which we should approach this problem, nor the spirit in which the House would desire us to approach it. We found some half dozen schools satisfying the conditions I have mentioned, and the local education authority and the head teacher went over the camps with representatives of the Board of Education and of the Camps Corporation. Remember that these camps were built for other purposes than for schools. They were built primarily as holiday camps.
The undesirability of undertaking a considerable number of these experiments in the creation of boarding schools just before Christmas needs only to be mentioned to the House. In December we were all working to prevent Christmas

destroying the evacuation scheme. In practice we had found that every time you stir the children around you lose a considerable percentage, and to set out in the middle of December to uproot the children from the billets to which they and their parents had become accustomed and to move them, before the Christmas parties which we had arranged with the object of keeping them in the safer areas —move them probably many miles away, would have been to lose 50, 60, or 70 per cent. of the children.
If we had moved them in the bitter cold weather, knowing that winter conditions still lay ahead of us, we should have started the experiment under the most unfavourable conditions possible. Everyone would have criticised me in the House, together with the President of the Board of Education, the Parliamentary Secretary and everybody connected with the Government for their gross ignorance in not knowing that children were sensitive plants, and would freeze if left out in the cold weather.
I do not apologise at all because I am not going to rush and uproot children from warm houses and transfer them even into central-heated huts until I see the weather improve a little. I have a report on one of the dormitories in a camp which shows that on one day this month they could not get the temperature above 48 degrees. In these circumstances I am sure everybody will realise that to have a camp unoccupied at the present moment is not a serious blunder, but a very wise precaution. If we moved a number of children under severe weather conditions we might get illness—colds and pneumonia—and everyone would condemn us for gross carelessness in the human lives entrusted to our charge.
We had the camps inspected and later we sent out the circular to which my hon. Friend referred. In the circular we did, as he says, go as low as 150 because, again, school unity is most important. We are not wasting space by having the camps occupied by 150 instead of 300 because evacuation space is space which is valuable to us. If intensive bombing starts we shall have only half the space occupied, but there will still be room for more children if they have to be moved in a great hurry. In that case, of course, all our scruples about preserving the individuality of the schools


would have to go by the board. The vacant space would be doubly valuable. If we can use that space profitably and preserve the individuality of the schools, and get the good will of the teachers and parents, I am sure the hon. Member himself would be the first to say we were doing right. The response to the circular has been considerable. We have requests for over a dozen camps, and others are coming in daily. I have no doubt that the schools will be forthcoming for the camps which are now ready and those to be completed in the near future. Since last Monday even—

It being Eleven of the Clock the Motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.)

Mr. Elliot: Since last Monday arrangements have been made for three camps in the North of England to be occupied by scholars of three different authorities. Now we have to consider what use we can make of the whole programme of the camps, and whether we are to mortgage the whole of them permanently during the war for whole-time boarding school use. I think that a number of these camps could properly be retained for the purpose for which we originally built them, for relays of children not only from the congested areas of the great towns, but from some of the reception areas where their presence is becoming a little tiresome to householders. They may well turn into holiday camps from two points of view, benefiting not merely the children who go to them, but also the householders who will be temporarily relieved of the children. Furthermore, the use of these camps by relays of children passing through them will enable us to take a larger number of children, give them the necessary drill in assembly, and getting them together in unfamiliar surroundings, which will be invaluable if afterwards they have to do that under the stress of intensive aerial warfare.
This is one of the reasons why we do not wish to fill up all the camps at once. Even the numbers which we are already considering constitute a very great educational experiment. We are having to fill 11,000 places for children of 11 years of age and upwards. That is nearly twice

the number of pupils there are in the 10 biggest public schools of England, which have not got more than 6,500 pupils between them. If any of us had before the war proposed to found 10 great public schools in one year, we should have been laughed out of court for an arrogant set of busybodies who had no conception of what the task of founding a boarding school is like. Yet that is what we are to try to do this year.
Do not let us under-estimate the size of the experiment and hastily demand that all these things should be in full working order by 1st April.
These are the main points which I wished to bring before the House. I say again that it is a very important and it may be a very lasting and far-reaching experiment which we are conducting. It it true that we owe it to the lull which we now enjoy, and it is possible that that lull will not continue, but so long as it does let us make sure that we are doing our best to utilise this strange gift which fortune has put into our hands, and say to ourselves, "We are not setting about the education of flocks of young children but about the founding of one, two, five, 15 or 20 boarding schools in which thousands of young people will live and where the conditions will bear very much more instantly and immediately upon them than do the conditions in any day school or billet." Let us remember the responsibility which is placed upon us, and not hesitate to keep a camp empty a week, two weeks, or a month if need be, if we can thereby make sure that the young people we are sending to it look upon their stay there as one of the best times in their lives, and not as a period of imprisonment from which they would be only too glad to be released.

Mr. Paling: I have never seen a statement of where these schools are situated. Has one been issued, and if not, can we be supplied with the information?

Mr. Elliot: I have here a statement showing where the camps are situated, and I should be very glad to show it to the hon. Gentleman.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I want to express my thanks for at any rate the greater portion of the statement made by the Minister. I realise the value of the analogy between what he is setting out to do and the great


public schools, but I hope that he will not carry that analogy too far. I am not sure that on this side of the House we are all capable of appreciating aright schools which we have not had the advantage of attending, but I am thinking in terms of the school population, with which we can deal in this way in relation to the whole. While I realise that the principal value of this experiment is the retention of the school entity, yet I want at the same time to prevent a whole area of dissatisfaction being created as a consequence of one entity having been retained while another section of the community is broken up. In no circumstances could we provide for all our children in this way. I realise the value of taking children over a given age, particularly in the circumstances of the war; but I would impress upon the Minister this fact —it is a fact, gained from experience at our camp schools organised under different circumstances and with less haste—that while they have been of great advantage to the younger children who are suffering from some physical defects, in the main the value of these schools lay in the retention of the entity of the school. To the extent that they can be used for, say, a central school, not necessarily a selective central school, when the children are approaching the critical age in their education, to the extent to which they can be retained as an entity, and their education can continue even in these difficult times, these camps will be a blessing in disguise for that section of the school population.
I hope also that there will be cooperation with the Board of Education, and that the Minister will not take offence at my suggestion that these camps are being organised under the wrong Department. I am not suggesting that the Minister is not doing his best but that the camps ought to be under the Board of Education. I believe it is their job. I know that the moving of the schools from the danger zones into reception areas was the job of the Minister of Health, but he has done that job; now the organisation of the school camps is a job for the education authority and ought, in my judgment, to be under the President of the Board of Education. Educational facilities ought to be the first consideration because, included in them, is the health of the school child.
One cannot, at this time of night, develop this subject, to show the valuable use to which these camps could be put, but I want to express thanks to the Minister for the explanation which he has given to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). Many of us who are interested in this aspect of the subject will look for its further development with as much interest as the right hon. Gentleman himself has. Whatever we can say to encourage the settlement of these children in the camps will be said, and every encouragement will be given to them.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.